Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the btrfs-kdave tree | From | Jens Axboe <> | Date | Wed, 16 Nov 2016 19:49:29 -0700 |
| |
On 11/16/2016 07:01 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Jens, > > Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got conflicts in: > > fs/btrfs/extent_io.c > fs/btrfs/inode.c > > between commit: > > 01a1400f8545 ("btrfs: only check bio size to see if a repair bio should have the failfast flag") > > from the btrfs-kdave tree and commit: > > 70fd76140a6c ("block,fs: use REQ_* flags directly") > > 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. >
I don't have the full context here, but this:
diff --cc fs/btrfs/extent_io.c index 5694d60adad9,1e67723c27a1..000000000000 --- a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c @@@ -2403,10 -2403,8 +2403,8 @@@ static int bio_readpage_error(struct bi return -EIO; }
- if (failed_bio->bi_vcnt > 1) + if (failed_bio->bi_iter.bi_size > BTRFS_I(inode)->root->sectorsize) - read_mode = READ_SYNC | REQ_FAILFAST_DEV; - else - read_mode = READ_SYNC; + read_mode |= REQ_FAILFAST_DEV;
phy_offset >>= inode->i_sb->s_blocksize_bits; bio = btrfs_create_repair_bio(inode, failed_bio, failrec, page,
doesn't look correct, if bio_readpage_error() is called from the ->bi_end_io() handler. bi_size is generally zeroed at that time.
-- Jens Axboe
| |