Re: xfs: Assertion failed in xfs_ag_resv_init()

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 06:59:33PM +0200, Andre Noll wrote:
> On Wed, May 01, 08:36, Darrick J. Wong wrote
> > > > You could send this patch to the stable list, but my guess is that
> > > > they'd prefer a straight backport of all three commits...
> > > 
> > > Hm, cherry-picking the first commit onto 4.9,171 already gives
> > > four conflicting files. The conflicts are trivial to resolve (git
> > > cherry-pick -xX theirs 21ec54168b36 does it), but that doesn't
> > > compile because xfs_btree_query_all() is missing.  So e9a2599a249ed
> > > (xfs: create a function to query all records in a btree) is needed as
> > > well. But then, applying 86210fbebae (xfs: move various type verifiers
> > > to common file) on top of that gives non-trivial conflicts.
> > 
> > Ah, I suspected that might happen.  Backports are hard. :(
> > 
> > I suppose one saving grace of the patch you sent is that it'll likely
> > break the build if anyone ever /does/ attempt a backport of those first
> > two commits.  Perhaps that is the most practical way forward.
> > 
> > > So, for automatic backporting we would need to cherry-pick even more,
> > > and each backported commit should be tested of course. Given this, do
> > > you still think Greg prefers a rather large set of straight backports
> > > over the simple commit that just pulls in the missing function?
> > 
> > I think you'd have to ask him that, if you decide not to send
> > yesterday's patch.
> 
> Let's try. I've added a sentence to the commit message which explains
> why a straight backport is not practical, and how to proceed if anyone
> wants to backport the earlier commits.
> 
> Greg: Under the given circumstances, would you be willing to accept
> the patch below for 4.9?

If the xfs maintainers say this is ok, it is fine with me.

thanks,

greg k-h