From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ipmail03.adl6.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.143]:13930 "EHLO ipmail03.adl6.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725971AbfBJWMS (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Feb 2019 17:12:18 -0500 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 09:12:05 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] xfs: stable fixes for v4.19.y Message-ID: <20190210221205.GQ14116@dastard> References: <20190204165427.23607-1-mcgrof@kernel.org> <20190205220655.GF14116@dastard> <20190208194829.GJ11489@garbanzo.do-not-panic.com> <20190208213201.GP14116@dastard> <20190208215057.GL11489@garbanzo.do-not-panic.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190208215057.GL11489@garbanzo.do-not-panic.com> Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Luis Chamberlain Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, Alexander.Levin@microsoft.com, stable@vger.kernel.org, amir73il@gmail.com, hch@infradead.org On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 01:50:57PM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > On Sat, Feb 09, 2019 at 08:32:01AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 11:48:29AM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 09:06:55AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 08:54:17AM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > > > > Kernel stable team, > > > > > > > > > > here is a v2 respin of my XFS stable patches for v4.19.y. The only > > > > > change in this series is adding the upstream commit to the commit log, > > > > > and I've now also Cc'd stable@vger.kernel.org as well. No other issues > > > > > were spotted or raised with this series. > > > > > > > > > > Reviews, questions, or rants are greatly appreciated. > > > > > > > > Test results? > > > > > > > > The set of changes look fine themselves, but as always, the proof is > > > > in the testing... > > > > > > I've first established a baseline for v4.19.18 with fstests using > > > a series of different sections to test against. I annotated the > > > failures on an expunge list and then use that expunge list to confirm > > > no regressions -- no failures if we skip the failures already known for > > > v4.19.18. > > > > > > Each different configuration I test against I use a section for. I only > > > test x86_64 for now but am starting to create a baseline for ppc64le. > > > > > > The sections I use: > > > > > > * xfs > > > * xfs_nocrc > > > * xfs_nocrc_512 > > > * xfs_reflink > > > * xfs_reflink_1024 > > > * xfs_logdev > > > * xfs_realtimedev > > > > Yup, that seems to cover most common things :) > > To be clear in the future I hope to also have a baseline for: > > * xfs_bigblock > > But that is *currently* [0] only possible on the following architectures > with the respective kernel config: > > aarch64: > CONFIG_ARM64_64K_PAGES=y > > ppc64le: > CONFIG_PPC_64K_PAGES=y > > [0] Someone is working on 64k pages on x86 I think? Yup, I am, but that got derailed by wanting fsx coverage w/ dedup/clone/copy_file_range before going any further with it. That was one of the triggers that lead to finding all those data corruption and API problems late last year... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com