Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the mm-stable tree with the cifs tree

From: Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2023 19:01:57 +1100

Hi Matthew,

On Mon, 20 Feb 2023 13:58:29 +0000 Matthew Wilcox <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 03:29:33PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the mm-stable tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   fs/cifs/file.c
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   c8859bc0c129 ("cifs: Remove unused code")
> > 
> > from the cifs tree and commits:
> > 
> >   4cda80f3a7a5 ("cifs: convert wdata_alloc_and_fillpages() to use filemap_get_folios_tag()")
> >   d585bdbeb79a ("fs: convert writepage_t callback to pass a folio")
> > 
> > from the mm-stable tree.
> > 
> > This is a real mess :-(  
> 
> Doesn't look too bad to me.  Dave's commit is just removing the
> functions, so it doesn't matter how they're being changed.

The problem I see is that an earlier commit in the cifs tree moves the
use of find_get_pages_range_tag() to another function and 4cda80f3a7a5
then removes find_get_pages_range_tag().

> The real question in my mind is why for-next is being updated two days
> before the merge window with new patches.  What's the point in -next
> if patches are being added at this late point?

Indeed :-(

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell