diff mbox series

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

Message ID 20240206124852.6183d0f7@canb.auug.org.au
State New
Headers
Series linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the vfs-brauner tree |

Commit Message

Stephen Rothwell Feb. 6, 2024, 1:48 a.m. UTC 
  Hi all,

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

  block/blk.h

between commits:

  19db932fd2b0 ("bdev: make bdev_{release, open_by_dev}() private to block layer")
  09f8289e1b74 ("bdev: make struct bdev_handle private to the block layer")
  d75140abba91 ("bdev: remove bdev pointer from struct bdev_handle")

from the vfs-brauner tree and commits:

  c4e47bbb00da ("block: move cgroup time handling code into blk.h")
  08420cf70cfb ("block: add blk_time_get_ns() and blk_time_get() helpers")
  da4c8c3d0975 ("block: cache current nsec time in struct blk_plug")
  06b23f92af87 ("block: update cached timestamp post schedule/preemption")

from the block 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.

Comments

Jens Axboe Feb. 6, 2024, 4:37 p.m. UTC | #1 
On 2/5/24 6:48 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   block/blk.h
> 
> between commits:
> 
>   19db932fd2b0 ("bdev: make bdev_{release, open_by_dev}() private to block layer")
>   09f8289e1b74 ("bdev: make struct bdev_handle private to the block layer")
>   d75140abba91 ("bdev: remove bdev pointer from struct bdev_handle")
> 
> from the vfs-brauner tree and commits:
> 
>   c4e47bbb00da ("block: move cgroup time handling code into blk.h")
>   08420cf70cfb ("block: add blk_time_get_ns() and blk_time_get() helpers")
>   da4c8c3d0975 ("block: cache current nsec time in struct blk_plug")
>   06b23f92af87 ("block: update cached timestamp post schedule/preemption")
> 
> from the block 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.

That's a lot of conflicts. Christian, we really should separate some of
these so we can have the shared bits in a shared branch.
Christian Brauner Feb. 7, 2024, 9:27 a.m. UTC | #2 
On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 09:37:33AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 2/5/24 6:48 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   block/blk.h
> > 
> > between commits:
> > 
> >   19db932fd2b0 ("bdev: make bdev_{release, open_by_dev}() private to block layer")
> >   09f8289e1b74 ("bdev: make struct bdev_handle private to the block layer")
> >   d75140abba91 ("bdev: remove bdev pointer from struct bdev_handle")
> > 
> > from the vfs-brauner tree and commits:
> > 
> >   c4e47bbb00da ("block: move cgroup time handling code into blk.h")
> >   08420cf70cfb ("block: add blk_time_get_ns() and blk_time_get() helpers")
> >   da4c8c3d0975 ("block: cache current nsec time in struct blk_plug")
> >   06b23f92af87 ("block: update cached timestamp post schedule/preemption")
> > 
> > from the block 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.
> 
> That's a lot of conflicts. Christian, we really should separate some of
> these so we can have the shared bits in a shared branch.

Yes, happy to do that. Let's quickly sync later today when you're up?
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --cc block/blk.h
index f02b25f22e8b,913c93838a01..000000000000
--- a/block/blk.h