linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: drivers/md/md.c between commit: 57a0f3a81ef2 ("Revert "md: add md_submit_discard_bio() for submitting discard bio"") from Linus' tree and commit: 1c02fca620f7 ("block: remove the request_queue argument to the

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: fs/io_uring.c between commits: 4eb8dded6b82 ("io_uring: fix openat/openat2 unified prep handling") f5cac8b156e8 ("io_uring: don't use retry based buffered reads for non-async bdev") from Linus' tree and commit:

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

On 4/14/19 9:06 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: > > include/linux/bvec.h > > between commit: > > 1200e07f3ad4 ("block: don't use for-inside-for in bio_for_each_segment_all") > > from Linus' tree and commit: > >

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: include/linux/bvec.h between commit: 1200e07f3ad4 ("block: don't use for-inside-for in bio_for_each_segment_all") from Linus' tree and commit: 52d52d1c98a9 ("block: only allow contiguous page structs in a bio_vec")

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: block/bfq-iosched.c between commit: eed47d19d936 ("block, bfq: fix use after free in bfq_bfqq_expire") from Linus' tree and commit: 636b8fe86bed ("block, bfq: fix some typos in comments") from the block tree. I

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: include/linux/fs.h between commit: 84c4e1f89fef ("aio: simplify - and fix - fget/fput for io_submit()") from Linus' tree and commit: fb7e160019f4 ("fs: add an iopoll method to struct file_operations") from the block

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

On 11/15/18 7:19 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: > > block/blk.h > > between commit: > > 1adfc5e4136f ("block: make sure discard bio is aligned with logical block > size") > > from Linus' tree (precedes v4.20-rc2)

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

On 11/15/18 7:19 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: > > block/blk.h > > between commit: > > 1adfc5e4136f ("block: make sure discard bio is aligned with logical block > size") > > from Linus' tree (precedes v4.20-rc2)

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: block/blk.h between commit: 1adfc5e4136f ("block: make sure discard bio is aligned with logical block size") from Linus' tree (precedes v4.20-rc2) and commit: 079076b3416e ("block: remove deadline __deadline

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: block/blk.h between commit: 1adfc5e4136f ("block: make sure discard bio is aligned with logical block size") from Linus' tree (precedes v4.20-rc2) and commit: 079076b3416e ("block: remove deadline __deadline

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: drivers/nvme/host/rdma.c between commit: b925a2dc165e ("nvme-rdma: default MR page size to 4k") from Linus' tree and commits: 90af35123d3b ("nvme-rdma: move nvme_rdma_configure_admin_queue code location")

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: drivers/nvme/host/rdma.c between commit: b925a2dc165e ("nvme-rdma: default MR page size to 4k") from Linus' tree and commits: 90af35123d3b ("nvme-rdma: move nvme_rdma_configure_admin_queue code location")

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: fs/block_dev.c between commit: 9ae3b3f52c62 ("block: provide bio_uninit() free freeing integrity/task associations") from Linus' tree and commit: 4e4cbee93d56 ("block: switch bios to blk_status_t") from the block

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: fs/block_dev.c between commit: 9ae3b3f52c62 ("block: provide bio_uninit() free freeing integrity/task associations") from Linus' tree and commit: 4e4cbee93d56 ("block: switch bios to blk_status_t") from the block

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: drivers/md/dm-raid1.c between commit: cd15fb64ee56 ("Revert "dm mirror: use all available legs on multiple failures"") from Linus' tree and commits: 9966afaf91b3 ("dm: fix REQ_RAHEAD handling") 1be569098458 ("dm:

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: drivers/md/dm-raid1.c between commit: cd15fb64ee56 ("Revert "dm mirror: use all available legs on multiple failures"") from Linus' tree and commits: 9966afaf91b3 ("dm: fix REQ_RAHEAD handling") 1be569098458 ("dm:

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: drivers/md/dm-io.c between commit: feb7695fe9fb ("dm io: fix duplicate bio completion due to missing ref count") from Linus' tree and commit: 4e4cbee93d56 ("block: switch bios to blk_status_t") from the block tree.

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: drivers/md/dm-io.c between commit: feb7695fe9fb ("dm io: fix duplicate bio completion due to missing ref count") from Linus' tree and commit: 4e4cbee93d56 ("block: switch bios to blk_status_t") from the block tree.

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

On 06/22/2017 09:33 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Jens, > > On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 21:27:04 -0600 Jens Axboe wrote: >> >> On 06/22/2017 09:24 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >>> Hi Jens, >>> >>> On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 21:09:22 -0600 Jens Axboe wrote: I'll

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

On 06/22/2017 09:33 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Jens, > > On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 21:27:04 -0600 Jens Axboe wrote: >> >> On 06/22/2017 09:24 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >>> Hi Jens, >>> >>> On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 21:09:22 -0600 Jens Axboe wrote: I'll cherry pick that commit into the

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 21:27:04 -0600 Jens Axboe wrote: > > On 06/22/2017 09:24 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi Jens, > > > > On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 21:09:22 -0600 Jens Axboe wrote: > >> > >> I'll cherry pick that commit into the 4.13 branch to get

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 21:27:04 -0600 Jens Axboe wrote: > > On 06/22/2017 09:24 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi Jens, > > > > On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 21:09:22 -0600 Jens Axboe wrote: > >> > >> I'll cherry pick that commit into the 4.13 branch to get this resolved. > > > > Merging

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

On 06/22/2017 09:24 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Jens, > > On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 21:09:22 -0600 Jens Axboe wrote: >> >> I'll cherry pick that commit into the 4.13 branch to get this resolved. > > Merging commit 8e8320c9315c might give a better result ... To be clear, what I

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

On 06/22/2017 09:24 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Jens, > > On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 21:09:22 -0600 Jens Axboe wrote: >> >> I'll cherry pick that commit into the 4.13 branch to get this resolved. > > Merging commit 8e8320c9315c might give a better result ... To be clear, what I meant (and did)

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

On 06/22/2017 09:24 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Jens, > > On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 21:09:22 -0600 Jens Axboe wrote: >> >> I'll cherry pick that commit into the 4.13 branch to get this resolved. > > Merging commit 8e8320c9315c might give a better result ... I don't want to pull

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

On 06/22/2017 09:24 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Jens, > > On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 21:09:22 -0600 Jens Axboe wrote: >> >> I'll cherry pick that commit into the 4.13 branch to get this resolved. > > Merging commit 8e8320c9315c might give a better result ... I don't want to pull the whole thing

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 21:09:22 -0600 Jens Axboe wrote: > > I'll cherry pick that commit into the 4.13 branch to get this resolved. Merging commit 8e8320c9315c might give a better result ... -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 21:09:22 -0600 Jens Axboe wrote: > > I'll cherry pick that commit into the 4.13 branch to get this resolved. Merging commit 8e8320c9315c might give a better result ... -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

On 06/22/2017 09:06 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Jens, > > Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: > > block/blk-mq-sched.c > > between commit: > > 8e8320c9315c ("blk-mq: fix performance regression with shared tags") > > from Linus' tree and commits: > >

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

On 06/22/2017 09:06 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Jens, > > Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: > > block/blk-mq-sched.c > > between commit: > > 8e8320c9315c ("blk-mq: fix performance regression with shared tags") > > from Linus' tree and commits: > >

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: block/blk-mq-sched.c between commit: 8e8320c9315c ("blk-mq: fix performance regression with shared tags") from Linus' tree and commits: d2c0d3832469 ("blk-mq: move blk_mq_sched_{get,put}_request to blk-mq.c")

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: block/blk-mq-sched.c between commit: 8e8320c9315c ("blk-mq: fix performance regression with shared tags") from Linus' tree and commits: d2c0d3832469 ("blk-mq: move blk_mq_sched_{get,put}_request to blk-mq.c")

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: block/blk-lib.c between commit: 05bd92dddc59 ("block: missing bio_put following submit_bio_wait") from Linus' tree and commit: 4e49ea4a3d27 ("block/fs/drivers: remove rw argument from submit_bio") from the block

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: block/blk-lib.c between commit: 05bd92dddc59 ("block: missing bio_put following submit_bio_wait") from Linus' tree and commit: 4e49ea4a3d27 ("block/fs/drivers: remove rw argument from submit_bio") from the block

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 02:14:29PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 13:07:50 +1000 Stephen Rothwell > wrote: > > > > + * Get the bios in the request so we can re-queue them. > > + */ > > -

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 02:14:29PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 13:07:50 +1000 Stephen Rothwell > wrote: > > > > + * Get the bios in the request so we can re-queue them. > > + */ > > - if

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 13:07:50 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > + * Get the bios in the request so we can re-queue them. > + */ > - if (shadow[j].request->cmd_flags & > -

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 13:07:50 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > + * Get the bios in the request so we can re-queue them. > + */ > - if (shadow[j].request->cmd_flags & > - (REQ_FLUSH | REQ_FUA

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: drivers/block/xen-blkfront.c between commit: 7b427a59538a ("xen-blkfront: save uncompleted reqs in blkfront_resume()") from Linus' tree and commit: c2df40dfb8c0 ("drivers: use req op accessor") 3a5e02ced11e

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: drivers/block/xen-blkfront.c between commit: 7b427a59538a ("xen-blkfront: save uncompleted reqs in blkfront_resume()") from Linus' tree and commit: c2df40dfb8c0 ("drivers: use req op accessor") 3a5e02ced11e

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: block/blk-lib.c between commit: 05bd92dddc59 ("block: missing bio_put following submit_bio_wait") from the FIXME tree and commit: 4e49ea4a3d27 ("block/fs/drivers: remove rw argument from submit_bio") from the block

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: block/blk-lib.c between commit: 05bd92dddc59 ("block: missing bio_put following submit_bio_wait") from the FIXME tree and commit: 4e49ea4a3d27 ("block/fs/drivers: remove rw argument from submit_bio") from the block

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

On 05/02/2016 10:25 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: drivers/nvme/host/pci.c between commit: 9bf2b972afea ("NVMe: Fix reset/remove race") from Linus' tree and commit: bb8d261e0888 ("nvme: introduce a controller

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

On 05/02/2016 10:25 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: drivers/nvme/host/pci.c between commit: 9bf2b972afea ("NVMe: Fix reset/remove race") from Linus' tree and commit: bb8d261e0888 ("nvme: introduce a controller

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: drivers/nvme/host/pci.c between commit: 9bf2b972afea ("NVMe: Fix reset/remove race") from Linus' tree and commit: bb8d261e0888 ("nvme: introduce a controller state machine") from the block tree. I fixed it up (I

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: drivers/nvme/host/pci.c between commit: 9bf2b972afea ("NVMe: Fix reset/remove race") from Linus' tree and commit: bb8d261e0888 ("nvme: introduce a controller state machine") from the block tree. I fixed it up (I

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: drivers/nvme/host/core.c between commit: 075790ebba4a ("NVMe: Use IDA for namespace disk naming") from Linus' tree and commit: f4f0f63e6f01 ("nvme: fix drvdata setup for the nvme device") from the block tree. I

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: drivers/nvme/host/core.c between commit: 075790ebba4a ("NVMe: Use IDA for namespace disk naming") from Linus' tree and commit: f4f0f63e6f01 ("nvme: fix drvdata setup for the nvme device") from the block tree. I

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: drivers/nvme/host/pci.c between commit: ff23a2a15a21 ("NVMe: Poll device while still active during remove") f8e68a7c9af5 ("NVMe: Rate limit nvme IO warnings") b00a726a9fd8 ("NVMe: Don't unmap controller registers on

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: drivers/nvme/host/pci.c between commit: ff23a2a15a21 ("NVMe: Poll device while still active during remove") f8e68a7c9af5 ("NVMe: Rate limit nvme IO warnings") b00a726a9fd8 ("NVMe: Don't unmap controller registers on

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: drivers/nvme/host/pci.c between commits: 7ba7735d039c ("NVMe: Poll device while still active during remove") f8e68a7c9af5 ("NVMe: Rate limit nvme IO warnings") from Linus' tree and commit: 1b3c47c182aa ("nvme: Log

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: drivers/nvme/host/pci.c between commits: 7ba7735d039c ("NVMe: Poll device while still active during remove") f8e68a7c9af5 ("NVMe: Rate limit nvme IO warnings") from Linus' tree and commit: 1b3c47c182aa ("nvme: Log

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: drivers/nvme/host/pci.c between commit: f8e68a7c9af5 ("NVMe: Rate limit nvme IO warnings") from Linus' tree and commit: 1b3c47c182aa ("nvme: Log the ctrl device name instead of the underlying pci device name")

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: drivers/nvme/host/pci.c between commit: f8e68a7c9af5 ("NVMe: Rate limit nvme IO warnings") from Linus' tree and commit: 1b3c47c182aa ("nvme: Log the ctrl device name instead of the underlying pci device name")

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

On 01/21/2016 03:46 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi Jens, On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 14:34:57 +1100 Stephen Rothwell wrote: Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: drivers/nvme/host/pci.c between commit: b5875222de2f ("NVMe: IO ending fixes on surprise removal") from

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 14:34:57 +1100 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: > > drivers/nvme/host/pci.c > > between commit: > > b5875222de2f ("NVMe: IO ending fixes on surprise removal") > > from Linus' tree and commit: > >

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 14:34:57 +1100 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: > > drivers/nvme/host/pci.c > > between commit: > > b5875222de2f ("NVMe: IO ending fixes on surprise removal") > > from Linus'

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

On 01/21/2016 03:46 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi Jens, On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 14:34:57 +1100 Stephen Rothwell wrote: Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: drivers/nvme/host/pci.c between commit: b5875222de2f ("NVMe: IO ending fixes on

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: drivers/nvme/host/pci.c between commit: b5875222de2f ("NVMe: IO ending fixes on surprise removal") from Linus' tree and commit: 5bae7f73d378 ("nvme: move namespace scanning to common code") from the block tree. I

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: drivers/nvme/host/pci.c between commit: b5875222de2f ("NVMe: IO ending fixes on surprise removal") from Linus' tree and commit: 5bae7f73d378 ("nvme: move namespace scanning to common code") from the block tree. I

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: drivers/nvme/host/lightnvm.c between commit: 16f26c3aa9b9 ("lightnvm: replace req queue with nvmdev for lld") from Linus' tree and commit: ac02dddec633 ("NVMe: fix build with CONFIG_NVM enabled") from the block

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: drivers/nvme/host/lightnvm.c between commit: 16f26c3aa9b9 ("lightnvm: replace req queue with nvmdev for lld") from Linus' tree and commit: ac02dddec633 ("NVMe: fix build with CONFIG_NVM enabled") from the block

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: drivers/nvme/host/pci.c between commit: 1f390c1fde3a ("nvme: temporary fix for Apple controller reset") from Linus' tree and commit: 7a67cbea653e ("nvme: use offset instead of a struct for registers") from the

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: drivers/nvme/host/Makefile between commit: c4699e70d1db ("lightnvm: Simplify config when disabled") from Linus' tree and commit: 21d34711e1b5 ("nvme: split command submission helpers out of pci.c") from the block

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: drivers/nvme/host/Makefile between commit: c4699e70d1db ("lightnvm: Simplify config when disabled") from Linus' tree and commit: 21d34711e1b5 ("nvme: split command submission helpers out of pci.c") from the block

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: drivers/nvme/host/pci.c between commit: 1f390c1fde3a ("nvme: temporary fix for Apple controller reset") from Linus' tree and commit: 7a67cbea653e ("nvme: use offset instead of a struct for registers") from the

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: drivers/block/loop.c between commit: f4829a9b7a61 ("blk-mq: fix racy updates of rq->errors") from Linus' tree and commit: bc07c10a3603 ("block: loop: support DIO & AIO") from the block tree. I fixed it up (see

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: drivers/block/loop.c between commit: f4829a9b7a61 ("blk-mq: fix racy updates of rq->errors") from Linus' tree and commit: bc07c10a3603 ("block: loop: support DIO & AIO") from the block tree. I fixed it up (see

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: fs/fs-writeback.c between commit: 006a0973ed02 ("writeback: sync_inodes_sb() must write out I_DIRTY_TIME inodes and always call wait_sb_inodes()") from Linus' tree and commits: 1ed8d48c57bf ("writeback:

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: fs/fs-writeback.c between commit: 006a0973ed02 (writeback: sync_inodes_sb() must write out I_DIRTY_TIME inodes and always call wait_sb_inodes()) from Linus' tree and commits: 1ed8d48c57bf (writeback:

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: drivers/md/dm.c between commit: bd4aaf8f9b85 ("dm: fix dm_merge_bvec regression on 32 bit systems") from Linus' tree and commit: 8ae126660fdd ("block: kill merge_bvec_fn() completely") from the block tree. I fixed

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: drivers/md/dm.c between commit: bd4aaf8f9b85 (dm: fix dm_merge_bvec regression on 32 bit systems) from Linus' tree and commit: 8ae126660fdd (block: kill merge_bvec_fn() completely) from the block tree. I fixed it

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in mm/backing-dev.c between commit aad653a0bc09 ("block: discard bdi_unregister() in favour of bdi_destroy()") from Linus' tree and various commits from the block tree. I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in drivers/block/nvme-core.c between commit fec558b5f178 ("NVMe: fix type warning on 32-bit") from Linus' tree and commit d29ec8241c10 ("nvme: submit internal commands through the block layer") from the block tree. I fixed it up

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in drivers/block/nvme-core.c between commit fec558b5f178 (NVMe: fix type warning on 32-bit) from Linus' tree and commit d29ec8241c10 (nvme: submit internal commands through the block layer) from the block tree. I fixed it up (see

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in mm/backing-dev.c between commit aad653a0bc09 (block: discard bdi_unregister() in favour of bdi_destroy()) from Linus' tree and various commits from the block tree. I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in mm/page-writeback.c between commit 464d1387acb9 ("writeback: use |1 instead of +1 to protect against div by zero") from Linus' tree and commit de1fff37b278 ("writeback: s/bdi/wb/ in mm/page-writeback.c") from the block tree. I

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in include/linux/blkdev.h between commit 336b7e1f2309 ("block: remove export for blk_queue_bio") from Linus' tree and commit d40f75a06dd6 ("writeback, blkcg: restructure blk_{set|clear}_queue_congested()") from the block tree. I

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in mm/page-writeback.c between commit 464d1387acb9 (writeback: use |1 instead of +1 to protect against div by zero) from Linus' tree and commit de1fff37b278 (writeback: s/bdi/wb/ in mm/page-writeback.c) from the block tree. I

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in include/linux/blkdev.h between commit 336b7e1f2309 (block: remove export for blk_queue_bio) from Linus' tree and commit d40f75a06dd6 (writeback, blkcg: restructure blk_{set|clear}_queue_congested()) from the block tree. I

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

On Mon, Jun 01 2015 at 12:56am -0400, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Jens, > > Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in > drivers/md/dm.c between commits 3a1407559a59 ("dm: fix NULL pointer > when clone_and_map_rq returns !DM_MAPIO_REMAPPED") and e5d8de32cc02 > ("dm: fix false

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

On Mon, Jun 01 2015 at 12:56am -0400, Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au wrote: Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in drivers/md/dm.c between commits 3a1407559a59 (dm: fix NULL pointer when clone_and_map_rq returns !DM_MAPIO_REMAPPED) and e5d8de32cc02

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in drivers/md/dm.c between commits 3a1407559a59 ("dm: fix NULL pointer when clone_and_map_rq returns !DM_MAPIO_REMAPPED") and e5d8de32cc02 ("dm: fix false warning in free_rq_clone() for unmapped requests") from Linus' tree and

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in drivers/md/dm.c between commits 3a1407559a59 (dm: fix NULL pointer when clone_and_map_rq returns !DM_MAPIO_REMAPPED) and e5d8de32cc02 (dm: fix false warning in free_rq_clone() for unmapped requests) from Linus' tree and commit

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in block/blk-mq.c between commit ac2111753ca9 ("blk-mq: initialize 'struct request' and associated data to zero") from Linus' tree and commit cef4e5c345d3 ("blk-mq: ensure that request and PDU data are zeroed at init time") from

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in block/blk-mq.c between commit ac2111753ca9 (blk-mq: initialize 'struct request' and associated data to zero) from Linus' tree and commit cef4e5c345d3 (blk-mq: ensure that request and PDU data are zeroed at init time) from the

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in drivers/ata/libata-core.c between commit 72dd299d5039 ("libata: allow sata_sil24 to opt-out of tag ordered submission") from Linus' tree and commit 98bd4be1ba95 ("libata: move sas ata tag allocation to libata-scsi.c") from the

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in drivers/ata/libata-core.c between commit 72dd299d5039 (libata: allow sata_sil24 to opt-out of tag ordered submission) from Linus' tree and commit 98bd4be1ba95 (libata: move sas ata tag allocation to libata-scsi.c) from the

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in fs/bio-integrity.c between commit eec70897d81b ("bio-integrity: Drop bio_integrity_verify BUG_ON in post bip->bip_iter world") from Linus' tree and commit bf36f9cfa6d3 ("fs/bio-integrity: remove duplicate code") from the block

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in fs/bio-integrity.c between commit eec70897d81b (bio-integrity: Drop bio_integrity_verify BUG_ON in post bip-bip_iter world) from Linus' tree and commit bf36f9cfa6d3 (fs/bio-integrity: remove duplicate code) from the block tree.

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in block/blk-mq.c between commit d6a25b31315327 (blk-mq: support partial I/O completions) from Linus' tree and commit af5040da01ef (blktrace: fix accounting of partially completed requests) from the block tree. I fixed it up

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in block/blk-mq.c between commit d6a25b31315327 (blk-mq: support partial I/O completions) from Linus' tree and commit af5040da01ef (blktrace: fix accounting of partially completed requests) from the block tree. I fixed it up

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the tree

Hi all, On Fri, 8 Nov 2013 09:15:08 -0700 Jens Axboe wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 08 2013, Jens Axboe wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 07 2013, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > Btw, I have to state that I very much disagree with dropping the > > > direct I/O kernel changes, and I also very much disagree with

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the tree

Hi all, On Fri, 8 Nov 2013 09:15:08 -0700 Jens Axboe ax...@kernel.dk wrote: On Fri, Nov 08 2013, Jens Axboe wrote: On Thu, Nov 07 2013, Christoph Hellwig wrote: Btw, I have to state that I very much disagree with dropping the direct I/O kernel changes, and I also very much disagree with

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the tree

> > > That make sense? I can show you more concretely what I'm working on if > > > you want. Or if I'm full of crap and this is useless for what you guys > > > want I'm sure you'll let me know :) > > > > It sounds interesting, but also a little confusing at this point, at > > least from the

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the tree

On Fri, Nov 08 2013, Jens Axboe wrote: > On Thu, Nov 07 2013, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Btw, I have to state that I very much disagree with dropping the > > direct I/O kernel changes, and I also very much disagree with keeping > > the immutable iovecs in. > > > > For the latter I think the

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the tree

On Thu, Nov 07 2013, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Btw, I have to state that I very much disagree with dropping the > direct I/O kernel changes, and I also very much disagree with keeping > the immutable iovecs in. > > For the latter I think the immutable iovecs are useful and do want to > see them

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the tree

On 11/08/2013 01:33 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Btw, I have to state that I very much disagree with dropping the > direct I/O kernel changes, and I also very much disagree with keeping > the immutable iovecs in. > > For the latter I think the immutable iovecs are useful and do want to > see

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the tree

On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:32:51AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:17:37AM -0800, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > The core issue isn't whether the IO is going to a block based filesystem > > (but thanks for pointing out that that's not necessarily true!) but > > whether we

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the tree

On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:17:37AM -0800, Kent Overstreet wrote: > The core issue isn't whether the IO is going to a block based filesystem > (but thanks for pointing out that that's not necessarily true!) but > whether we want to work with pinned pages or not. If pinned pages are ok > for

  1   2   >