From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pg1-f193.google.com ([209.85.215.193]:42950 "EHLO mail-pg1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726384AbfF0VfY (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jun 2019 17:35:24 -0400 Received: by mail-pg1-f193.google.com with SMTP id k13so1585642pgq.9 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 14:35:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 21:35:20 +0000 From: Luis Chamberlain Subject: Re: [backport request][stable] xfs: xfstests generic/538 failed on xfs Message-ID: <20190627213520.GG19023@42.do-not-panic.com> References: <20190627155455.GA30113@42.do-not-panic.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Amir Goldstein Cc: Alvin Zheng , gregkh , linux-xfs , Brian Foster , "joseph.qi" , caspar On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 07:18:40PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 6:55 PM Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 08:10:56PM +0800, Alvin Zheng wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I was using kernel v4.19.y and found that it cannot pass the > > > generic/538 due to data corruption. I notice that upstream has fix this > > > issue with commit 2032a8a27b5cc0f578d37fa16fa2494b80a0d00a. Will v4.19.y > > > backport this patch? > > > > Hey Alvin, > > > > Thanks for Bringing this to attention. I'll look into this a bit more. > > Time for a new set of stable fixes for v4.19.y. Of course, I welcome > > Briant's feedback, but if he's busy I'll still look into it. > > > > FWIW, I tested -g quick on xfs with reflink=1,rmapbt=1 and did not > observe any regressions from v4.19.55. As you may recall I test all agreed upon configurations. Just one is not enough. > Luis, sorry I forgot to CC you on a request I just sent to consider 4 xfs > patches for stable to fix generic/529 and generic/530: > > 3b50086f0c0d xfs: don't overflow xattr listent buffer > e1f6ca113815 xfs: rename m_inotbt_nores to m_finobt_nores > 15a268d9f263 xfs: reserve blocks for ifree transaction during log recovery > c4a6bf7f6cc7 xfs: don't ever put nlink > 0 inodes on the unlinked list > > If you can run those patches through your setup that would be great. Sure, it may take 1-2 weeks, just a heads up. If you're OK with waiting then great. Otherwise I personally cannot vouch for them. What types of tests did you run and what configurations? Luis