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

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi all,

On Mon, 23 May 2022 12:28:27 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   fs/io_uring.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   4329490a78b6 ("io_uring_enter(): don't leave f.flags uninitialized")
> 
> from the vfs tree and commit:
> 
>   3e813c902672 ("io_uring: rework io_uring_enter to simplify return value")
> 
> 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.
> 
> diff --cc fs/io_uring.c
> index 82a1eac73de7,fd47002e669d..000000000000
> --- a/fs/io_uring.c
> +++ b/fs/io_uring.c
> @@@ -10840,8 -12060,9 +12060,8 @@@ iopoll_locked
>   out:
>   	percpu_ref_put(&ctx->refs);
>   out_fput:
>  -	if (!(flags & IORING_ENTER_REGISTERED_RING))
>  -		fdput(f);
>  +	fdput(f);
> - 	return submitted ? submitted : ret;
> + 	return ret;
>   }
>   
>   #ifdef CONFIG_PROC_FS


This is now a conflict between Linus' tree and the vfs tree.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Attachment: pgp0pggC19XfP.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature