Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 20 Feb 2023 19:01:57 +1100 | From | Stephen Rothwell <> | Subject | Re: linux-next: manual merge of the mm-stable tree with the cifs tree |
| |
Hi Matthew,
On Mon, 20 Feb 2023 13:58:29 +0000 Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 03:29:33PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the mm-stable tree got a conflict in: > > > > fs/cifs/file.c > > > > between commit: > > > > c8859bc0c129 ("cifs: Remove unused code") > > > > from the cifs tree and commits: > > > > 4cda80f3a7a5 ("cifs: convert wdata_alloc_and_fillpages() to use filemap_get_folios_tag()") > > d585bdbeb79a ("fs: convert writepage_t callback to pass a folio") > > > > from the mm-stable tree. > > > > This is a real mess :-( > > Doesn't look too bad to me. Dave's commit is just removing the > functions, so it doesn't matter how they're being changed.
The problem I see is that an earlier commit in the cifs tree moves the use of find_get_pages_range_tag() to another function and 4cda80f3a7a5 then removes find_get_pages_range_tag().
> The real question in my mind is why for-next is being updated two days > before the merge window with new patches. What's the point in -next > if patches are being added at this late point?
Indeed :-(
-- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |