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=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham 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 A01B9C04EB8 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 10:14:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5267F20863 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 10:14:48 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="eJZzsP0F" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 5267F20863 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726691AbeK3VXe (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Nov 2018 16:23:34 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:35672 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726469AbeK3VXe (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Nov 2018 16:23:34 -0500 Received: from localhost (84.94.36.10.cable.012.net.il [84.94.36.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 01A0F20863; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 10:14:44 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1543572885; bh=kyp/RmuGkzHtyEb6sDDYkHyYZypxPEO2JH0cwYComVI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=eJZzsP0F5mkIT+KnpzbExJcDVd+aDpdIQoieD66rwZ7ruwr0++7Go1Hpaw3ujb+0v 9TGTDUxdqIT8RDBK613Tz/yg32daHb2pVXWFnhsF3807bZtb3NHQrc4yNmRU1pViQn alDW+jY8JI6xPkf/mMGdxrHP+Ji9feUnkgwk43mI= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 05:14:41 -0500 From: Sasha Levin To: Greg KH Cc: Dave Chinner , stable@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Dave Chinner , "Darrick J . Wong" , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 4.14 25/35] iomap: sub-block dio needs to zeroout beyond EOF Message-ID: <20181130101441.GA213156@sasha-vm> References: <20181129060110.159878-1-sashal@kernel.org> <20181129060110.159878-25-sashal@kernel.org> <20181129121458.GK19305@dastard> <20181129124756.GA25945@kroah.com> <20181129224019.GM19305@dastard> <20181130082203.GA26830@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181130082203.GA26830@kroah.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 09:22:03AM +0100, Greg KH wrote: >On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 09:40:19AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: >> I stopped my tests at 5 billion ops yesterday (i.e. 20 billion ops >> aggregate) to focus on testing the copy_file_range() changes, but >> Darrick's tests are still ongoing and have passed 40 billion ops in >> aggregate over the past few days. >> >> The reason we are running these so long is that we've seen fsx data >> corruption failures after 12+ hours of runtime and hundreds of >> millions of ops. Hence the testing for backported fixes will need to >> replicate these test runs across multiple configurations for >> multiple days before we have any confidence that we've actually >> fixed the data corruptions and not introduced any new ones. >> >> If you pull only a small subset of the fixes, the fsx will still >> fail and we have no real way of actually verifying that there have >> been no regression introduced by the backport. IOWs, there's a >> /massive/ amount of QA needed for ensuring that these backports work >> correctly. >> >> Right now the XFS developers don't have the time or resources >> available to validate stable backports are correct and regression >> fre because we are focussed on ensuring the upstream fixes we've >> already made (and are still writing) are solid and reliable. > >Ok, that's fine, so users of XFS should wait until the 4.20 release >before relying on it? :) It's getting to the point that with the amount of known issues with XFS on LTS kernels it makes sense to mark it as CONFIG_BROKEN. >I understand your reluctance to want to backport anything, but it really >feels like you are not even allowing for fixes that are "obviously >right" to be backported either, even after they pass testing. Which >isn't ok for your users. Do the XFS maintainers expect users to always use the latest upstream kernel? -- Thanks, Sasha