Re: [PATCH 5.10 CANDIDATE 00/11] xfs stable candidate patches for 5.10.y (v5.15+)

Amir Goldstein
2022-06-23T07:34:01Z

On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 2:45 AM Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 01:06:30PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Previously posted candidates for 5.10.y followed chronological release
> > order.
> >
> > Parts 1 and 2 of fixes from v5.10..v5.12 have already been applied to
> > v5.10.121.
> >
> > Part 3 (from 5.13) has already been posted for review [3] on June 6,
> > but following feedback from Dave, I changed my focus to get the same
> > set of patches tested and reviewed for 5.10.y/5.15.y.
> >
> > I do want to ask you guys to also find time to review part 3, because
> > we have a lot of catching up to do for 5.10.y, so we need to chew at
> > this debt at a reasonable rate.
> >
> > This post has the matching set of patches for 5.10.y that goes with
> > Leah's first set of candidates for 5.15.y [1].
> >
> > Most of the fixes are from v5.15..v5.17 except for patch 11 (v5.18-rc1).
> > All fix patches have been tagged with Fixes: by the author.
> >
> > The patches have been soaking in kdepops since Sunday. They passed more
> > than 30 auto group runs with several different versions of xfsprogs.
> >
> > The differences from Leah's 5.15.y:
> > - It is 11 patches and not 8 because of dependencies
> > - Patches 6,7 are non-fixes backported as dependency to patch 8 -
> > they have "backported .* for dependency" in their commit message
> > - Patches 3,4,11 needed changes to apply to 5.10.y - they have a
> > "backport" related comment in their commit message to explain what
> > changes were needed
> > - Patch 10 is a fix from v5.12 that is re-posted as a dependency for
> > patch 11
> >
> > Darrick,
> >
> > As the author patches 4,11 and sole reviewer of patch 3 (a.k.a
> > the non-cleanly applied patches), please take a closer look at those.
> >
> > Patch 10 has been dropped from my part 2 candidates following concerns
> > raised by Dave and is now being re-posted following feedback from
> > Christian and Christoph [2].
> >
> > If there are still concerns about patches 10 or 11, please raise a flag.
> > I can drop either of these patches before posting to stable if anyone
> > feels that they need more time to soak in master.
>
> At the current moment (keep in mind that I have 2,978 more emails to get

Oh boy! Thank you for getting to my series so soon.

> through before I'm caught up), I think it's safe to say that for patches
> 1-5:
>
> Acked-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>
>
> (patch 9 also, but see the reply I just sent for that one about grabbing
> the sync_fs fixes too)
>
> The log changes are going to take more time to go through, since that
> stuff is always tricky and /not/ something for me to be messing with at
> 4:45pm.

Let's make it easier for you then.
I already decided to defer patches 9-11.

Since you already started looking at patches 6-8, if you want to finish
that review let me know and I will wait, but if you prefer, I can also defer
the log changes 6-8 and post them along with the other log fixes from 5.14.
That means that I have a 5 patch series ACKed and ready to go to stable.

Let me know what you prefer.

Thanks,
Amir.