Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the folio tree with the btrfs tree

From: Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 18:39:08 +1000

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the folio tree got a conflict in:

  fs/btrfs/send.c

between commit:

  d1a1a97304b4 ("btrfs: send: keep the current inode open while processing it")

from the btrfs tree and commit:

  2ebdd1df3166 ("mm/readahead: Convert page_cache_async_readahead to take a folio")

from the folio tree.

I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as
necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any
non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer
when your tree is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider
cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any
particularly complex conflicts.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc fs/btrfs/send.c
index 8e8e4ab59930,8985d115559d..000000000000
--- a/fs/btrfs/send.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/send.c
@@@ -4905,13 -4984,14 +4905,14 @@@ static int put_file_data(struct send_ct
  			}
  		}
  
 -		if (PageReadahead(page)) {
 -			page_cache_async_readahead(inode->i_mapping, &sctx->ra,
 -						NULL, page_folio(page), index,
 -						last_index + 1 - index);
 -		}
 +		if (PageReadahead(page))
 +			page_cache_async_readahead(sctx->cur_inode->i_mapping,
- 						   &sctx->ra, NULL, page, index,
++						   &sctx->ra, NULL,
++						   page_folio(page), index,
 +						   last_index + 1 - index);
  
  		if (!PageUptodate(page)) {
- 			btrfs_readpage(NULL, page);
+ 			btrfs_read_folio(NULL, page_folio(page));
  			lock_page(page);
  			if (!PageUptodate(page)) {
  				unlock_page(page);