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

From: Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2024 10:58:18 +1000

Hi all,

On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 12:41:44 +0100 Mark Brown <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs-brauner tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   fs/btrfs/inode.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   adaac2633c9ad ("btrfs: remove super block argument from btrfs_iget_locked()")
> 
> from the btrfs tree and commit:
> 
>   b49558e8ce3dc ("btrfs: use iget5_locked_rcu")
> 
> from the vfs-brauner 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.
> 
> diff --cc fs/btrfs/inode.c
> index 89e58647d08de,cbb2c92b6c084..0000000000000
> --- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
> @@@ -5582,7 -5587,7 +5582,7 @@@ static struct inode *btrfs_iget_locked(
>   	args.ino = ino;
>   	args.root = root;
>   
> - 	inode = iget5_locked(root->fs_info->sb, hashval, btrfs_find_actor,
>  -	inode = iget5_locked_rcu(s, hashval, btrfs_find_actor,
> ++	inode = iget5_locked_rcu(root->fs_info->sb, hashval, btrfs_find_actor,
>   			     btrfs_init_locked_inode,
>   			     (void *)&args);
>   	return inode;

This is now a coflict between the btrfs tree and Linus' tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell