From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([59.151.112.132]:54910 "EHLO heian.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751248AbcDOBRy (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Apr 2016 21:17:54 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: fix loading of orphan roots leading to BUG_ON To: References: <1456933778-7944-1-git-send-email-fdmanana@kernel.org> <570F2BF0.2060409@cn.fujitsu.com> CC: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>, "linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org" , Chris Mason , David Sterba From: Qu Wenruo Message-ID: <5710413D.6030505@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 09:17:49 +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: Filipe Manana wrote on 2016/04/14 10:21 +0100: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 6:34 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote: >> Ping? >> >> Cc: Chris and David >> >> It seems that this fix is missing in 4.6 merge window. >> Or did I miss something? > > 4.5-rc7: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/3/4/695 Strangely, not in integration-4.6. This makes me wonder which branch I should use now... Thanks, Qu > >> >> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > >