From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from userp2120.oracle.com ([156.151.31.85]:54930 "EHLO userp2120.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932705AbeCOPqL (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Mar 2018 11:46:11 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 08:46:04 -0700 From: "Darrick J. Wong" Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: detect agfl count corruption and reset agfl Message-ID: <20180315154604.GX4865@magnolia> References: <20180314171724.41951-1-bfoster@redhat.com> <20180314181218.GR4865@magnolia> <20180315103839.GA44732@bfoster.bfoster> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180315103839.GA44732@bfoster.bfoster> Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Brian Foster Cc: Dave Chiluk , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 06:38:39AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 03:42:50PM -0500, Dave Chiluk wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:12 PM, Darrick J. Wong > > wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 01:17:24PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > ... > > > > Reviewed-by Dave Chiluk > > > > I'm also assuming this will get submitted back to the linux-stable > > trees as the agfl packing change is already causing issues in the > > stable trees. If you do not intend to push it into the linux-stable > > trees let me know and I'll take care of at least the major ones. > > > > Yeah, I can cc stable in the next post along with the other minor fixes. > My question is how far back should this fix go? Was the plan to only go > back to v4.5 because that is where the packing fix first went in? Or > should this go back further because it looks like the packing fix was > backported to v3.10: > > $ git show 96f859d52bcb1 > commit 96f859d52bcb1c6ea6f3388d39862bf7143e2f30 > Author: Darrick J. Wong > Date: Mon Jan 4 16:13:21 2016 +1100 > > libxfs: pack the agfl header structure so XFS_AGFL_SIZE is correct > > ... > > cc: # 3.10 - 4.4 > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong > Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner Hmmm, I'm assuming that you'd want 3.10 at least for RHEL, but I'll let you all figure that one out. As far as the upstream kernels, 4.14.27, 4.9.87, 4.4.121, and 4.1.50 have that packing patch so I guess they'll all need some version of this. --D > > Brian > > > Thanks, > > Dave > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html