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

From: Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2023 10:45:20 +1000

Hi all,

On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 09:08:03 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the btrfs tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   fs/btrfs/file.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   39bf7bdb48fe ("backing_dev: remove current->backing_dev_info")
> 
> from the mm tree and commit:
> 
>   3564004ccddf ("btrfs: determine synchronous writers from bio or writeback control")
> 
> from the btrfs 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 fs/btrfs/file.c
> index ecd43ab66fa6,f53b7b75092d..000000000000
> --- a/fs/btrfs/file.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/file.c
> @@@ -1683,9 -1682,7 +1679,6 @@@ ssize_t btrfs_do_write_iter(struct kioc
>   			num_written = num_sync;
>   	}
>   
> - 	if (sync)
> - 		atomic_dec(&inode->sync_writers);
> - 
>  -	current->backing_dev_info = NULL;
>   	return num_written;
>   }
>   

This is now a conflict between the mm-stable tree and Linus' tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell