From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out30-101.freemail.mail.aliyun.com (out30-101.freemail.mail.aliyun.com [115.124.30.101]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6A1A3EA66; Sun, 5 Jul 2026 07:40:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.101 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783237250; cv=none; b=I6oWZJt8Mq8FqTc5XnTOgn4KPSi1HXk1TlRs7PTFwDF4dQsDFiLrLjV1Gb6rHnqHbEPui2yE4snAWg7qe+G+lyvTk4zVFEPD2Ir5P9HKdRZlJRSD9es/a/nmAHFnAzwkpLPDsHXWDYwQavYQk66Ng7Kckdjl/0ZIZW2fVWALc/o= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783237250; c=relaxed/simple; bh=vO48+m7+2WQQja+iFM4NWC6kEpNIK4AUz/HzNYfxPek=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=KMcnrdV6NOmP+oCFYl16ufO2GhZnCFddoUKZ0f7hur6JDDfK82TGEGcPiEDSAptFQehLk1aIk4JLryip6nEZhH3ishcOtd1as5iNwWrx3OgSQ0fXluY4SLKNkC9Nma8Ih4ZM5wEf/llqJ9ilm57c7MnmKs49vSCpw48hf7mQAHc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.alibaba.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.i=@linux.alibaba.com header.b=e5zXHx/s; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.101 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.i=@linux.alibaba.com header.b="e5zXHx/s" DKIM-Signature:v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.alibaba.com; s=default; t=1783237238; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From:Content-Type; bh=poWmIpfrKGOp1k1Ii9e1PAXNinbhHNMj6ySg8b7FjMo=; b=e5zXHx/sKDc6JjCgTgP51Z8DzVwAGauK0bsCj1Sz/8atjYqTmlgbZPjyGlXj2DW+ijLr4hacB8oB4+jmq7LDL80r/+vNI81WXVWxqOx0j3hnOa3p0TZZ0rykhhpL+V2ImoiTW2cN2j9A70nHQOHzK6sMSmzzJZROUtoS3Ymllaw= X-Alimail-AntiSpam:AC=PASS;BC=-1|-1;BR=01201311R211e4;CH=green;DM=||false|;DS=||;FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1;HT=maildocker-contentspam033037026112;MF=libaokun@linux.alibaba.com;NM=1;PH=DS;RN=11;SR=0;TI=SMTPD_---0X6NSUrE_1783237236; Received: from 30.170.105.22(mailfrom:libaokun@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0X6NSUrE_1783237236 cluster:ay36) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com; Sun, 05 Jul 2026 15:40:37 +0800 Message-ID: <18cab6b1-d94e-4a82-a518-ba3c2ef02864@linux.alibaba.com> Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2026 15:40:35 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: get rid of ppath in get_ext_path() To: Theodore Tso Cc: Greg KH , Jiayuan Chen , Wang Jun <1742789905@qq.com>, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, 25125332@bjtu.edu.cn, Jan Kara , Ojaswin Mujoo References: <2026062643-tamer-limes-a320@gregkh> <2026070210-catty-grape-2568@gregkh> <2026070315-crescent-factoid-616d@gregkh> <2904d1db-11fa-450a-89ea-20fe133fa268@linux.alibaba.com> From: Baokun Li In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 2026/7/3 19:48, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Fri, Jul 03, 2026 at 04:44:32PM -0500, Baokun Li wrote: >>>> Either applying this fix patchset or reverting the incorrectly merged >>>> commit should resolve the issue. >>> How about submitting a revert so that we can start fresh and work from >>> there? >> Alright, I can help review the patches. > Can you also double check whether your patchset actually fixes a bug > in 6.6? As near as I can tell, it wasn't needed for 6.1 at all. > The earlier patches in the "get rid of ppath" series that I tagged as bugfixes have already been backported to stable. The remaining "get rid of ppath" patches without a Fixes: tag (the ones recently picked up by stable) are there purely for code readability and to reduce the risk of future misuse — they don't fix any actual bug. Looking at what was pulled in, the patch carries a tag:   Stable-dep-of: 22784ca541c0 ("ext4: subdivide EXT4_EXT_DATA_VALID1") which in turn is a dependency of:   58ddae5d77b1 ("ext4: don't zero the entire extent if EXT4_EXT_DATA_PARTIAL_VALID1") — a fix for a stale data read when free space is low. However, the dependency of 22784ca541c0 on the "get rid of ppath" series is purely a context (textual) dependency; not backporting those patches should cause no functional issues. Thanks, Baokun