On 1/15/19 7:25 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/ext4/readpage.c
>
> between commit:
>
> acc9eb0a6073 ("ext4: add fs-verity read support")
>
> from the fscrypt tree and commit:
>
> eb754eb2a953 ("block: allow bio_for_each_segment_all() to iterate over
> multi-page bvec")
>
> from the block tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below - the former moved the code modified by the
> latter) 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.
Ming, I'm pulling this, I thought we agreed none of these bullshit
renames? The fact that a patch looks like this:
- for_each_bvec(bv, (it)->bvecs, __cur_iter, __cur_iter) \
+ for_each_segment(bv, (it)->bvecs, __cur_iter, __cur_iter) \
is SUPER annoying and does NOTHING but to cause merge conflicts.
Resend it without that.
--
Jens Axboe
