From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B4D9C38BF9 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 22:46:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF5E520732 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 22:46:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="tqmojPNt" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727459AbgBXWqY (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Feb 2020 17:46:24 -0500 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.133]:49944 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727670AbgBXWqY (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Feb 2020 17:46:24 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version :References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=emVsuVrQkFSTVtQ1doa2q5ySiHFAMcMg6ERMbg/GLb4=; b=tqmojPNtfB6XyYZv9lpYHxG4uW AWM/7ynZjVHvhWDJ19RB/dKnL1ODzGGyyCPLeoCO2cNaBpTu2zCUhVImjzZoO4OMuUbDwzT3IuqrR hQGoaMi4vskJtt4i5apl5R3GePP1GHJhT3FPEfBFwnY1qMUfEx9r2mqXoPeDncvBijAfUCRJuNu7+ Nmoric0jnnBADYnM6xrb460+BBYivlyufN4V4yLYdANhzQ6moX9SiLjoCd63/m0wnW+bYU1pwd0nJ 9zETOEntSGLaZRqX6Yp+WWAx/JaP4ZKa1BC1JjUc3uRVQ4nMKMbXbudnhwPdd+1TQ+3CR4Yuc3izN lJX269/Q==; Received: from hch by bombadil.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1j6MUY-0002TT-Cu; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 22:46:22 +0000 Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 14:46:22 -0800 From: Christoph Hellwig To: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Christoph Hellwig , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, Eric Sandeen Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] xfs: remove the agfl_bno member from struct xfs_agfl Message-ID: <20200224224622.GA25075@infradead.org> References: <20200130133343.225818-1-hch@lst.de> <20200130133343.225818-2-hch@lst.de> <20200224220256.GA3446@infradead.org> <20200224221931.GA6740@magnolia> <20200224222118.GA681@infradead.org> <20200224222737.GB6740@magnolia> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200224222737.GB6740@magnolia> X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org. See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 02:27:37PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 02:21:18PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 02:19:31PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig > > > > > > > > Any chance we can pick this up for 5.6 to unbreak arm OABI? > > > > > > Yeah, I can do that. Is there a Fixes: tag that goes with this? > > > > I'm not sure what to add. I think the problem itself has actually > > always been around since adding v5 fs support. But the build break > > was only caused by the addition of the BUILD_BUG_ON. > > Hmm. That's tricky, since in theory this should go all the way back to > the introduction of the v5 format in 3.x, but that's going to require > explicit backporting to get past all the reorganization and other things > that have happened. We might just have to hand-backport it to the > stable kernels seeing how the macro name change will probably cause all > sorts of problems with AI backports. :/ So which fixes tag do you want? Or feel free to just add the one you feel fits best. > > > Also, will you have a chance to respin the last patch for 5.7? > > > > Last patch in this series? > > Yes. From the discussion of patch 6/6, > > "+ __xfs_sb_from_disk(&sb, bp->b_addr, false); > > "why not dsb here > > "Yes, this should just pass dsb." Oh. I've actually had the respun branch on my box since a day after that comment. But I think it doesn't make sense until the fix in patch one is in the baseline tree, given how many outstanding patch series we have.