From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.cn.fujitsu.com ([183.91.158.132]:26967 "EHLO heian.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726068AbfFZBSt (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Jun 2019 21:18:49 -0400 Message-ID: <5D12C7F5.8050502@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 09:18:45 +0800 From: Yang Xu MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] generic/554: test only copy to active swap file References: <20190611153916.13360-1-amir73il@gmail.com> <20190611153916.13360-2-amir73il@gmail.com> <20190618090238.kmeocxasyxds7lzg@XZHOUW.usersys.redhat.com> <20190618150242.GA4576@mit.edu> <20190618151144.GB5387@magnolia> <5D11F781.4040906@cn.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Amir Goldstein Cc: Theodore Ts'o , darrick , Murphy Zhou , fstests , linux-xfs On 2019/06/25 18:35, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 1:29 PM Yang Xu wrote: >> on 2019/06/18 23:11, Darrick J. Wong wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 11:02:42AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: >>>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 12:16:45PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 12:02 PM Murphy Zhou wrote: >>>>>> Would you mind updating sha1 after it get merged to Linus tree? >>>>>> >>>>>> That would be helpful for people tracking this issue. >>>>>> >>>>> This is the commit id in linux-next and expected to stay the same >>>>> when the fix is merged to Linus tree for 5.3. >>>> When I talked to Darrick last week, that was *not* the sense I got >>>> from him. It's not necessarily guaranteed to be stable just yet... >>> Darrick hasn't gotten any complaints about the copy-file-range-fixes >>> branch (which has been in for-next for a week now), so he thinks that >>> commit id (a31713517dac) should be stable from here on out. >>> >>> (Note that doesn't guarantee that Linus will pull said branch...) >>> >>> --D >> Hi Amir >> >> The kernel fix commit message is right? :-) Because when I backport this patch into 5.2.0-rc6+ kernel, >> generic/554(553) also fails, it should be commit a5544984af4 (vfs: add missing checks to copy_file_range). >> By the way, a31713517dac ("vfs: introduce generic_file_rw_checks()") doesn't check for immutable and swap file. >> >> I think we can change this message after the fix is merged to Linus tree for 5.3. What do you think about it? > You are right. Documented commit is wrong. > The correct commit in linux-next is: > 96e6e8f4a68d ("vfs: add missing checks to copy_file_range") > > (Not sure where you got a5544984af4 from?) I get a5544984af4 from Darrick.wong copy-file-range-fixes branch. > Let's fix that after the commit is upstream. > > Obviously, you would need to backport the entire series and not just this > one commit to stable kernel. Yes. I got it. > Thanks, > Amir. > > >