From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:51686 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726005AbfEARPc (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 May 2019 13:15:32 -0400 Date: Wed, 1 May 2019 19:15:29 +0200 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman Subject: Re: xfs: Assertion failed in xfs_ag_resv_init() Message-ID: <20190501171529.GB28949@kroah.com> References: <20190430121420.GW2780@tuebingen.mpg.de> <20190430151151.GF5207@magnolia> <20190430162506.GZ2780@tuebingen.mpg.de> <20190430174042.GH5207@magnolia> <20190430190525.GB2780@tuebingen.mpg.de> <20190430191825.GF5217@magnolia> <20190430210724.GD2780@tuebingen.mpg.de> <20190501153643.GL5207@magnolia> <20190501165933.GF2780@tuebingen.mpg.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190501165933.GF2780@tuebingen.mpg.de> Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Andre Noll Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.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