From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2018 08:50:05 +1100 From: Dave Chinner To: Sasha Levin Cc: Greg KH , 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: <20181130215005.GP19305@dastard> 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> <20181130101441.GA213156@sasha-vm> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181130101441.GA213156@sasha-vm> List-ID: On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 05:14:41AM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote: > 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. Really? Where are the bug reports? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com