From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AD857CBF for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 16:11:08 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8712C304032 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 14:11:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.129]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 0HFIlDUcIMfMo7E9 for ; Mon, 04 Mar 2013 14:11:03 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 09:11:00 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: request for stable inclusion Message-ID: <20130304221100.GL26081@dastard> References: <426368976.8591643.1362386550488.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> <1879117295.8593844.1362387154930.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1879117295.8593844.1362387154930.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: CAI Qian Cc: Mark Tinguely , Brian Foster , stable@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, Ben Myers , Dave Chinner On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 03:52:34AM -0500, CAI Qian wrote: > This is to request to apply the below commit for the stable releases > in order to fix a regression introduced by 055388a (xfs: dynamic > speculative EOF preallocation) that caused fsync() took long time during > the sparse file testing. > > For stable-3.4 and stable-3.8, it can be applied as it is. For stable-3.0, > please see the below patch which fixed the context and used xfs_bmapi() > instead of xfs_bmapi_read() which yet in the tree. Also tested on the > stable-3.0 to confirmed the original fsync() slowness regression is now > gone. Please review and ACK. I've already said no to -stable in another discussion thread, and that discussion has not yet played out. please do not try to preempt any discussion by sending patches to @stable before it is even decided if it is something we *need* to fix in 2 year old kernels. Yes, you have input into the discussion, but please do not take it upon yourself to determine what should be backported to -stable and what shouldn't be - that is for the subsystem maintainers to decide. FWIW, is your memory so short that you don't remember what happened a couple of weeks ago with the last XFS bugfix backport you requested directly to @stable and was accepted based on "it applies and builds, so it's OK?" i.e. without proper review, discussion or testing? That's right - it caused a major functional regression and that wasted a heap of time for quite a few people in sorting it out. So right now this request gets a big, fat, loud NACK from me while the aforementioned discussion takes place. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs