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

From: Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2025 08:58:32 +1100

Hi all,

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

  fs/btrfs/file.c

between commit:

  ede21a086a16 ("btrfs: use end_pos variable where needed in btrfs_dirty_folio()")

from the btrfs tree and commit:

  48f3784b17d9 ("btrfs: Use folio_next_pos()")

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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc fs/btrfs/file.c
index 1e0ff3d7210d,977931cfa71e..000000000000
--- a/fs/btrfs/file.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/file.c
@@@ -86,9 -86,11 +86,9 @@@ int btrfs_dirty_folio(struct btrfs_inod
  		extra_bits |= EXTENT_NORESERVE;
  
  	start_pos = round_down(pos, fs_info->sectorsize);
 -	num_bytes = round_up(write_bytes + pos - start_pos,
 -			     fs_info->sectorsize);
 +	num_bytes = round_up(end_pos - start_pos, fs_info->sectorsize);
  	ASSERT(num_bytes <= U32_MAX);
- 	ASSERT(folio_pos(folio) <= pos && folio_end(folio) >= end_pos);
 -	ASSERT(folio_pos(folio) <= pos &&
 -	       folio_next_pos(folio) >= pos + write_bytes);
++	ASSERT(folio_pos(folio) <= pos && folio_next_pos(folio) >= end_pos);
  
  	end_of_last_block = start_pos + num_bytes - 1;