On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 4:46 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 09, 2025 at 10:53:29PM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 9, 2025 at 9:57 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 09, 2025 at 06:33:34PM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 2:35 PM Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) > > > > <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > gfs2_end_log_write() has to handle bios which consist of both pages > > > > > which belong to folios and pages which were allocated from a mempool and > > > > > do not belong to a folio. It would be cleaner to have separate endio > > > > > handlers which handle each type, but it's not clear to me whether that's > > > > > even possible. > > > > > > > > > > This patch is slightly forward-looking in that page_folio() cannot > > > > > currently return NULL, but it will return NULL in the future for pages > > > > > which do not belong to a folio. > > > > > > > > > > This was the last user of page_has_buffers(), so remove it. > > > > > > > > Right now in for-next, ocfs2 is still using page_has_buffers(), so I'm > > > > going to skip this part. > > > > > > How odd. I see it removed in 1b426db11ba8 ecee61651d8f 0fad0a824e5c > > > 414ae0a44033 and all of those commits are in 6.14-rc1. > > > > > > $ git show v6.14-rc1:fs/ocfs2/aops.c |grep page_has > > > (no output) > > > > Hmm, you're right, it's only that automatic test that's based on an > > older kernel. Sorry for the confusion. > > Looks like your for-next doesn't include v6.14-rc1. > > gfs2 104b4d597ff21b923b1e963c5793efcadeae047e > > is the entry in SHA1s for next-20250307. And: > > $ git log v6.14-rc1 ^104b4d597ff21b923b1e963c5793efcadeae047e > shows quite a lot of commits (9847 of them). So I think you didn't pull > from Linus before branching for the v6.15 merge window. Right, this is the point at which gfs2-for-6.14 was merged into mainline. > Not sure how > you manage your trees and how you'd like to improve this situation > (do you rebase? Do you want to bring in a merge commit of some -rc > version? If so, which one?) I have rebased onto v6.14-rc1 now, so things should be fine. Thanks, Andreas
