From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 05:14:41 -0500 From: Sasha Levin To: Greg KH Cc: Dave Chinner , stable@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Dave Chinner , "Darrick J . Wong" , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 4.14 25/35] iomap: sub-block dio needs to zeroout beyond EOF Message-ID: <20181130101441.GA213156@sasha-vm> References: <20181129060110.159878-1-sashal@kernel.org> <20181129060110.159878-25-sashal@kernel.org> <20181129121458.GK19305@dastard> <20181129124756.GA25945@kroah.com> <20181129224019.GM19305@dastard> <20181130082203.GA26830@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181130082203.GA26830@kroah.com> Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 09:22:03AM +0100, Greg KH wrote: >On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 09:40:19AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: >> I stopped my tests at 5 billion ops yesterday (i.e. 20 billion ops >> aggregate) to focus on testing the copy_file_range() changes, but >> Darrick's tests are still ongoing and have passed 40 billion ops in >> aggregate over the past few days. >> >> The reason we are running these so long is that we've seen fsx data >> corruption failures after 12+ hours of runtime and hundreds of >> millions of ops. Hence the testing for backported fixes will need to >> replicate these test runs across multiple configurations for >> multiple days before we have any confidence that we've actually >> fixed the data corruptions and not introduced any new ones. >> >> If you pull only a small subset of the fixes, the fsx will still >> fail and we have no real way of actually verifying that there have >> been no regression introduced by the backport. IOWs, there's a >> /massive/ amount of QA needed for ensuring that these backports work >> correctly. >> >> Right now the XFS developers don't have the time or resources >> available to validate stable backports are correct and regression >> fre because we are focussed on ensuring the upstream fixes we've >> already made (and are still writing) are solid and reliable. > >Ok, that's fine, so users of XFS should wait until the 4.20 release >before relying on it? :) It's getting to the point that with the amount of known issues with XFS on LTS kernels it makes sense to mark it as CONFIG_BROKEN. >I understand your reluctance to want to backport anything, but it really >feels like you are not even allowing for fixes that are "obviously >right" to be backported either, even after they pass testing. Which >isn't ok for your users. Do the XFS maintainers expect users to always use the latest upstream kernel? -- Thanks, Sasha