Re: [PATCH 5.10 0/2] Fix xfs/179 for 5.10 stable

[Guoqing Jiang <guoqing.jiang@linux.dev>]

On 8/4/23 23:47, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 05:36:50PM +0800, Guoqing Jiang wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> With the two patches applied, xfs/179 can pass in 5.10.188. Otherwise I got
>>
>> [root@localhost xfstests]# ./check xfs/179
>> FSTYP         -- xfs (non-debug)
>> PLATFORM      -- Linux/x86_64 localhost 5.10.188-default #14 SMP Thu Aug 3 15:23:19 CST 2023
>> MKFS_OPTIONS  -- -f /dev/loop1
>> MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o context=system_u:object_r:root_t:s0 /dev/loop1 /mnt/scratch
>>
>> xfs/179 1s ... [failed, exit status 1]- output mismatch (see /root/xfstests/results//xfs/179.out.bad)
>>      --- tests/xfs/179.out	2023-07-13 16:12:27.000000000 +0800
>>      +++ /root/xfstests/results//xfs/179.out.bad	2023-08-03 16:55:38.173787911 +0800
>>      @@ -8,3 +8,5 @@
>>       Check scratch fs
>>       Remove reflinked files
>>       Check scratch fs
>>      +xfs_repair fails
>>      +(see /root/xfstests/results//xfs/179.full for details)
>>      ...
>>      (Run 'diff -u /root/xfstests/tests/xfs/179.out /root/xfstests/results//xfs/179.out.bad'  to see the entire diff)
>>
>> HINT: You _MAY_ be missing kernel fix:
>>        b25d1984aa88 xfs: estimate post-merge refcounts correctly
>>
>> Ran: xfs/179
>> Failures: xfs/179
>> Failed 1 of 1 tests
>>
>> Please review if they are approriate for 5.10 stable.
> Seems fine to me, but ... there is no maintainer for 5.10; is your
> employer willing to support this LTS kernel?

Hi Darrick,

Thanks for your review! I think Amir is the maintainer for 5.10 😉. I 
can help
if needed since our kernel is heavily based on 5.10 stable. We also run 
tests
against 5.10 stable, that is why I send fixes patches for it.

Hi Greg,

Could you consider add the two to your list? Thank you!

Regards,
Guoqing