Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 4.20 072/117] btrfs: alloc_chunk: fix more DUP stripe size handling

Sasha Levin
2019-01-23T18:18:12Z

On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 03:54:00PM +0000, Hans van Kranenburg wrote:
>On 1/23/19 3:37 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 11:52:02PM +0000, Hans van Kranenburg wrote:
>>> Hi Sasha,
>>>
>>> On 1/8/19 8:25 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>>> From: Hans van Kranenburg <hans.van.kranenburg@mendix.com>
>>>>
>>>> [ Upstream commit baf92114c7e6dd6124aa3d506e4bc4b694da3bc3 ]
>>>>
>>>> Commit 92e222df7b "btrfs: alloc_chunk: fix DUP stripe size handling"
>>>> fixed calculating the stripe_size for a new DUP chunk.
>>>
>>> That one also ended up as:
>>>
>>> 4.14-stable
>>> 0136bd7238b2cb8238426af4183ed0b02165c3f9
>>>
>>> 4.9-stable
>>> 8890bae03f4dba1c2292e5445682b556af4e8f1b
>>>
>>> 4.4-stable
>>> 97c3e46ef53748278286fc09dcc30b138d6677c4
>>>
>>> 3.16.57-rc1
>>> f68f46284a199f6837c1d5b94a6ae979a2cc463c
>>>
>>> While hitting the failure condition without adding "crafting" steps to
>>> make it exactly match the scenario is unlikely, it might be good if we
>>> just go all the way back with this regression fix?
>>
>> What do you mean with "all the way back"?
>
>Oh, apologies for not using unambigious phrasing.
>
>I mean, it seems the autoselection only found 92e222df7b in places where
>it's actually called 92e222df7b, and not where it was cherry-picked.
>
>So, for my own understanding: If I have to do something like this ever
>again, then should I have added it like this inside baf92114c?
>
>Fixes: 92e222df7b ("btrfs: alloc_chunk: fix DUP stripe size handling")
>Fixes: 0136bd7238 ("btrfs: alloc_chunk: fix DUP stripe size handling")
>Fixes: 8890bae03f ("btrfs: alloc_chunk: fix DUP stripe size handling")
>Fixes: 97c3e46ef5 ("btrfs: alloc_chunk: fix DUP stripe size handling")
>Fixes: f68f46284a ("btrfs: alloc_chunk: fix DUP stripe size handling")
>
>Thanks for your patience, :)

Ah, the scripts have enough "brains" to deal with these on their own, so
no need to annotate that much.

This patch wasn't applied to older trees because it didn't cherry-pick
cleanly on top of them. Looking at it now, it seems to depend on
793ff2c88c6 ("btrfs: volumes: Cleanup stripe size calculation") which
can possibly be picked up if it makes sense.

--
Thanks,
Sasha