[ANNOUNCE] xfsprogs v3.2.0-alpha2

[ANNOUNCE] xfsprogs v3.2.0-alpha2

[Rich Johnston]

Alpha version 3.2.0-alpha2 of xfsprogs has been released.

The source code can be accessed via git using this URL:

      git://oss.sgi.com/xfs/cmds/xfsprogs.git

A gzipped-tar archive of the source code is available here:

      ftp://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/cmd_tars/xfsprogs-3.2.0-alpha2.tar.gz

The development tree previously hosted on kernel.org for this code has 
been deprecated:

      git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfsprogs-dev.git

Below is a summary (from the doc/CHANGES file) of the changes:

xfsprogs-3.2.0-alpha2 (25 November 2013)
         - Alpha release for the purpose of testing the CRC feature in
           kernels 3.10 and newer.
         - Enable xfs_db write support and xfs_metadump support for CRC
           enabled filesystems.
         - Add directory entry filetype support for non-CRC filesystems.
         - Remove experimental warnings for CRC filesystems.
         - Ensure all inodes created by xfs_repair have a proper d_type set.
         - Fix build on big endian machines.
         - Properly handle symlinks to devices on various tool commandlines.
         - Fix xfs_repair's dirty log detection for 4k sector logs, broken
           in Alpha1.
         - Fix a potential segfault in xfs_repair when issuing progress
           reports.
         - Fix potential xfs_fsr failures when running w/ selinux.
         - Update config.guess/config.sub for arm64, thanks to Colin Watson.
         - Stop wasting memory by caching inode structures in xfs_repair -
           they are never re-used.  Thanks to Christoph Hellwig.
         - Fix several Coverity-found defects, thanks to Li Zhong.
         - Fix platform_test_xfs_fd to return false on special files which
           cannot take an xfs ioctl.
         - Sync up libxfs with kernel code.
         - Improved xfs_repair performance on large filesystems
           (always use prefetch and strided AG scanning functionality)

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

Re: [ANNOUNCE] xfsprogs v3.2.0-alpha2

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 01:35:53PM -0600, Rich Johnston wrote:
> Alpha version 3.2.0-alpha2 of xfsprogs has been released.

So what issues keep us issueing alpha release instead of making a proper
.0 release?

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

Re: [ANNOUNCE] xfsprogs v3.2.0-alpha2

[Dave Chinner]

On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 02:40:02AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 01:35:53PM -0600, Rich Johnston wrote:
> > Alpha version 3.2.0-alpha2 of xfsprogs has been released.
> 
> So what issues keep us issueing alpha release instead of making a proper
> .0 release?

There's still things to fix in xfs_repair before we do a full
release. Run xfs/291 recently?

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

Re: [ANNOUNCE] xfsprogs v3.2.0-alpha2

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 08:18:58AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 02:40:02AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 01:35:53PM -0600, Rich Johnston wrote:
> > > Alpha version 3.2.0-alpha2 of xfsprogs has been released.
> > 
> > So what issues keep us issueing alpha release instead of making a proper
> > .0 release?
> 
> There's still things to fix in xfs_repair before we do a full
> release. Run xfs/291 recently?

Works fine for me on v4 super blocks, which is what I mostly care about
for now as that's what is in the field.  And we haven't sent fixed
for our existing installed base out for over 6 month now.

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

Re: [ANNOUNCE] xfsprogs v3.2.0-alpha2

[Dave Chinner]

On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:05:38AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 08:18:58AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 02:40:02AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 01:35:53PM -0600, Rich Johnston wrote:
> > > > Alpha version 3.2.0-alpha2 of xfsprogs has been released.
> > > 
> > > So what issues keep us issueing alpha release instead of making a proper
> > > .0 release?
> > 
> > There's still things to fix in xfs_repair before we do a full
> > release. Run xfs/291 recently?
> 
> Works fine for me on v4 super blocks, which is what I mostly care about
> for now as that's what is in the field.  And we haven't sent fixed
> for our existing installed base out for over 6 month now.

[ sorry for taking so long to reply - I missed this email, so
thatnks to Eric for pointing it out ot me this morning ]

I don't think that releasing with known deficiencies is a very good
idea. Perhaps it would be best to release a 3.1.12 with all the
relevant bugs fixes backported from the master branch to it?

I'm happy to create a 3.1-stable branch in the repository branched
off at the relevant point in the commit stream so we can host a 3.12
release, but I don't really have time to do any of the
identification and backporting of patches for such a release.

Hence, if you want to identify the commit to branch from and
provide a backport series of patches for a 3.12 release, then I
think we can do a stable release in short turn-around time. Would
that approach alleviating your concerns?

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

Re: [ANNOUNCE] xfsprogs v3.2.0-alpha2

[Ben Myers]

On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 09:17:14AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:05:38AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 08:18:58AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 02:40:02AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 01:35:53PM -0600, Rich Johnston wrote:
> > > > > Alpha version 3.2.0-alpha2 of xfsprogs has been released.
> > > > 
> > > > So what issues keep us issueing alpha release instead of making a proper
> > > > .0 release?
> > > 
> > > There's still things to fix in xfs_repair before we do a full
> > > release. Run xfs/291 recently?
> > 
> > Works fine for me on v4 super blocks, which is what I mostly care about
> > for now as that's what is in the field.  And we haven't sent fixed
> > for our existing installed base out for over 6 month now.
> 
> [ sorry for taking so long to reply - I missed this email, so
> thatnks to Eric for pointing it out ot me this morning ]
> 
> I don't think that releasing with known deficiencies is a very good
> idea. Perhaps it would be best to release a 3.1.12 with all the
> relevant bugs fixes backported from the master branch to it?
> 
> I'm happy to create a 3.1-stable branch in the repository branched
> off at the relevant point in the commit stream so we can host a 3.12
> release, but I don't really have time to do any of the
> identification and backporting of patches for such a release.
> 
> Hence, if you want to identify the commit to branch from and
> provide a backport series of patches for a 3.12 release, then I
> think we can do a stable release in short turn-around time. Would
> that approach alleviating your concerns?

IIRC last time we discussed this I expressed a preference for focussing
on the 3.2.0 release, but did not object to a 3.1.12 either.  I think
Eric followed up and asked if Christoph had specific concerns that
should prompt a 3.1.12 release.  Now I think it's probably just best to
focus on the xfs_repair bits for 3.2.0.

-Ben

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

Re: [ANNOUNCE] xfsprogs v3.2.0-alpha2

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 04:43:54PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> IIRC last time we discussed this I expressed a preference for focussing
> on the 3.2.0 release, but did not object to a 3.1.12 either.  I think
> Eric followed up and asked if Christoph had specific concerns that
> should prompt a 3.1.12 release.  Now I think it's probably just best to
> focus on the xfs_repair bits for 3.2.0.

My concern is pretty simple: we have a big batch of minor and not so
minor fixes that I want to get out to our users.  We've done releases
about every 3 month for the last couple years, but we've not done any
for 6 month by now.

I have to admit I'm a bit out of the loop on the v5 repair work, but if
Dave feels confident that he can get it done soon we should aim for a
3.2.0 release after that.  If not it's more than time to get a 3.1.12
out and I'd be happy to do the work for it.

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

Re: [ANNOUNCE] xfsprogs v3.2.0-alpha2

[Ben Myers]

On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 03:00:23AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 04:43:54PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> > IIRC last time we discussed this I expressed a preference for focussing
> > on the 3.2.0 release, but did not object to a 3.1.12 either.  I think
> > Eric followed up and asked if Christoph had specific concerns that
> > should prompt a 3.1.12 release.  Now I think it's probably just best to
> > focus on the xfs_repair bits for 3.2.0.
> 
> My concern is pretty simple: we have a big batch of minor and not so
> minor fixes that I want to get out to our users.  We've done releases
> about every 3 month for the last couple years, but we've not done any
> for 6 month by now.
> 
> I have to admit I'm a bit out of the loop on the v5 repair work, but if
> Dave feels confident that he can get it done soon we should aim for a
> 3.2.0 release after that.  If not it's more than time to get a 3.1.12
> out and I'd be happy to do the work for it.

Sounds good to me.  Lets see how long Dave thinks the repair work will take and
base the decision upon that.

-Ben

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

Re: [ANNOUNCE] xfsprogs v3.2.0-alpha2

[Dave Chinner]

On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 03:00:23AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 04:43:54PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> > IIRC last time we discussed this I expressed a preference for focussing
> > on the 3.2.0 release, but did not object to a 3.1.12 either.  I think
> > Eric followed up and asked if Christoph had specific concerns that
> > should prompt a 3.1.12 release.  Now I think it's probably just best to
> > focus on the xfs_repair bits for 3.2.0.
> 
> My concern is pretty simple: we have a big batch of minor and not so
> minor fixes that I want to get out to our users.  We've done releases
> about every 3 month for the last couple years, but we've not done any
> for 6 month by now.
> 
> I have to admit I'm a bit out of the loop on the v5 repair work, but if
> Dave feels confident that he can get it done soon we should aim for a
> 3.2.0 release after that.  If not it's more than time to get a 3.1.12
> out and I'd be happy to do the work for it.

There's a bit of mess involved in the repair stuff - basically
propagating CRC errors and other errors detected by the verifiers
is a bit nasty and touches a lot of the repair code (think
everywhere that reads a buffer). I'm trying to work out a sane way
to handle this, but I haven't managed to do it in a manner I
consider acceptable and maintainable in the long term yet. Once I
work out a method of doing that sanely, I'll mangle the code to
handle it.

However, this really needs changes to the verifier instructure to be
able to distinguish between CRC errors and structure corruption
errors, so there's kernel changes that need to be done there as
well. Eventually we need the same distinction in the kernel code,
so I need to work it all out in terms of what reapir needs, then do
the kernel mods, and then port them back to userspace....

In short, there's still a significant amount of work needed here.

Oh, and there's still the dir ftype validation that needs to be
done - that's a separate piece of work, so maybe someone else
would like to tackle that so it gets done sooner?

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs