Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 5 Dec 2022 15:11:07 +1100 | From | Stephen Rothwell <> | Subject | Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the erofs tree |
| |
Hi Gao,
On Mon, 5 Dec 2022 11:13:50 +0800 Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@linux.alibaba.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 09:24:15AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in: > > > > fs/erofs/fscache.c > > > > between commits: > > > > 89175ef1262d ("erofs: switch to prepare_ondemand_read() in fscache mode") > > 89175ef1262d ("erofs: switch to prepare_ondemand_read() in fscache mode") > > > > from the erofs tree and commit: > > > > 89175ef1262d ("erofs: switch to prepare_ondemand_read() in fscache mode") > > > > from the vfs tree. > > Is the commit from the vfs tree correct? > > The conflict fix looks good to me (we tend to enable large folios in the > next cycle.)
The commits should be
89175ef1262d ("erofs: switch to prepare_ondemand_read() in fscache mode") a21274e993a6 ("erofs: support large folios for fscache mode")
from the erofs tree and
de4eda9de2d9 ("use less confusing names for iov_iter direction initializers")
from the vfs tree.
Cut and paste weirdness caught me again :-(
-- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] |  |