From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([59.151.112.132]:9029 "EHLO heian.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752423AbcDNFev (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Apr 2016 01:34:51 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: fix loading of orphan roots leading to BUG_ON To: , Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> References: <1456933778-7944-1-git-send-email-fdmanana@kernel.org> CC: "linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org" , Chris Mason , David Sterba From: Qu Wenruo Message-ID: <570F2BF0.2060409@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 13:34:40 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Ping? Cc: Chris and David It seems that this fix is missing in 4.6 merge window. Or did I miss something? Thanks, Qu Filipe Manana wrote on 2016/03/03 09:10 +0000: > On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 4:31 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote: >> fdmanana posted on Wed, 02 Mar 2016 15:49:38 +0000 as excerpted: >> >>> When looking for orphan roots during mount we can end up hitting a >>> BUG_ON() (at root-item.c:btrfs_find_orphan_roots()) if a log tree is >>> replayed and qgroups are enabled. >> >> This should hit 4.6, right? Will it hit 4.5 before release? > > It's not the first time you do a similar question, and if it's > targeted at me, all I can tell you is I don't know. It's the > maintainers (Chris, Josef, David) who decide when to pick patches and > for which releases. > >> >> Because I wasn't sure of current quota functionality status, but this bug >> obviously resets the counter on my ongoing "two kernel cycles with no >> known quota bugs before you try to use quotas" recommendation. > > You shouldn't spread such affirmation with such a level of certainty > every time a user reports a problem. > There are many bugs affecting the last 2 to 3 releases, but there are > also many bugs present since btrfs was added to the linux kernel tree, > and many others present for 2+ years, etc. > >> >> Meanwhile, what /is/ current quota feature status? Other than this bug, >> is it now considered known bug free, or is more quota reworking and/or >> bug fixing known to be needed for 4.6 and beyond? >> >> IOW, given that two release cycles no known bugs counter, are we >> realistically looking at that being 4.8, or are we now looking at 4.9 or >> beyond for reasonable quota stability? > > I don't know. I generally don't look actively look at qgroups, and I'm > not a user either. > You can only take conclusions based on user bug reports. Probably > there aren't more bugs for qgroups than there are for send/receive or > even non-btrfs specific features for example. > >> >> -- >> Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. >> "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- >> and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > >