Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the vfs tree

From: Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2022 13:09:00 +1000

Hi all,

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

  block/fops.c

between commit:

  91b94c5d6ae5 ("iocb: delay evaluation of IS_SYNC(...) until we want to check IOCB_DSYNC")

from the vfs tree and commit:

  16458cf3bd15 ("block: Use the new blk_opf_t type")

from the block tree.

I fixed it up (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 block/fops.c
index 7a40bc87d80f,29066ac5a2fa..000000000000
--- a/block/fops.c
+++ b/block/fops.c
@@@ -32,14 -32,14 +32,14 @@@ static int blkdev_get_block(struct inod
  	return 0;
  }
  
- static unsigned int dio_bio_write_op(struct kiocb *iocb)
+ static blk_opf_t dio_bio_write_op(struct kiocb *iocb)
  {
- 	unsigned int op = REQ_OP_WRITE | REQ_SYNC | REQ_IDLE;
+ 	blk_opf_t opf = REQ_OP_WRITE | REQ_SYNC | REQ_IDLE;
  
  	/* avoid the need for a I/O completion work item */
 -	if (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_DSYNC)
 +	if (iocb_is_dsync(iocb))
- 		op |= REQ_FUA;
- 	return op;
+ 		opf |= REQ_FUA;
+ 	return opf;
  }
  
  static bool blkdev_dio_unaligned(struct block_device *bdev, loff_t pos,