Re: [ANNOUNCE] xfs: for-next rebased to d4d12c02bf5f

["Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>]

On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 10:59:35AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 05:09:51PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 03:07:20PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > Hi folks,
> > > 
> > > I just rebased the for-next tree to correct a bad fixes tag in
> > > the tree that was flags by a linux-next sanity check. The code is
> > > the same, just a commit message needed rewriting, but that means all
> > > the commit change and you'll need to do forced update if you pulled
> > > the branch I pushed a few hours ago.
> > > 
> > > -Dave.
> > > 
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 
> > >   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfs-linux.git for-next
> > > 
> > >   Head Commit: d4d12c02bf5f768f1b423c7ae2909c5afdfe0d5f
> > > 
> > >   xfs: collect errors from inodegc for unlinked inode recovery (2023-06-05 14:48:15 +1000)
> > > 
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Darrick J. Wong (1):
> > >       xfs: fix broken logic when detecting mergeable bmap records
> > > 
> > > Dave Chinner (9):
> > >       xfs: buffer pins need to hold a buffer reference
> > >       xfs: restore allocation trylock iteration
> > >       xfs: defered work could create precommits
> > >       xfs: fix AGF vs inode cluster buffer deadlock
> > >       xfs: fix double xfs_perag_rele() in xfs_filestream_pick_ag()
> > >       xfs: fix agf/agfl verification on v4 filesystems
> > >       xfs: validity check agbnos on the AGFL
> > >       xfs: validate block number being freed before adding to xefi
> > >       xfs: collect errors from inodegc for unlinked inode recovery
> > > 
> > > Geert Uytterhoeven (1):
> > >       xfs: Fix undefined behavior of shift into sign bit
> > 
> > Hmm, I don't see "xfs: fix ag count overflow during growfs" in here.
> 
> No, I didn't pick it up because it conflicted with other bug fix
> stuff I am currently working on and I needed to look at it in more
> detail before doing anything with it. I hadn't followed the
> development of the patch at all, and it was up to v4 so I was going
> to need to spend a little bit of time on it to see what the history
> of it was first....

Ah, ok.  Most of the history was the author and I going 'round and
'round about how to validate the incoming fsblocks to prevent agcount
overflow without stomping on any other weird uses.

> > Dave, do you want to do another 6.4 bug release, or throw things back
> > over the wall so I can merge all the rest of the pending fixes for 6.5?
> 
> If you want, you can pick it up once I've sent a pull request for
> the current set of fixes in for-next. That will be later this week;
> it needs to spend a couple of days in linux-next before that
> happens, though.

Yeah, sounds good to me.

--D

> Cheers,
> 
> Dave.
> -- 
> Dave Chinner
> david@fromorbit.com