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=-2.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,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 81131C43219 for ; Wed, 1 May 2019 17:15:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 500BE208C3 for ; Wed, 1 May 2019 17:15:33 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1556730933; bh=aC9O2XTg1ahmOUUSj8FrutdMXzZDtEElEqAqcR9Q6bI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=bLLoPqQkiH/MxlF/TwJCG8rd+FTQMS8UbwrMRmbL1sTBD9hgiCEQo+PjqBD4dJB68 7/+K0JWkj3AgtUrpMkElamDzpayodLojb+okl/McZjiboTItM8xfZJdJTe1R4yIP7X EUu5o+PUw9ROGcWSwFAj6GLQG7pB4wMJYW8S3CR8= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726101AbfEARPc (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 May 2019 13:15:32 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:51686 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726005AbfEARPc (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 May 2019 13:15:32 -0400 Received: from localhost (83-86-89-107.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl [83.86.89.107]) (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 1DE9D20835; Wed, 1 May 2019 17:15:30 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1556730931; bh=aC9O2XTg1ahmOUUSj8FrutdMXzZDtEElEqAqcR9Q6bI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=bxPGgH3TVK+qGPC/NFlsdkfoP25FZWJeBCqUWR7hcXjSdLZduxGWuJizXLZGW3kvM J/oee+oIn6InrfIc2DrGcnc7PS//WRu772Ev/HFaTkJFA2fmDMT6KnUqCWyE0u+OQe IN548Bl6cF+RotdEPjxaUct4IbNk/G2lazLaKypo= Date: Wed, 1 May 2019 19:15:29 +0200 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Andre Noll Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: xfs: Assertion failed in xfs_ag_resv_init() Message-ID: <20190501171529.GB28949@kroah.com> References: <20190430121420.GW2780@tuebingen.mpg.de> <20190430151151.GF5207@magnolia> <20190430162506.GZ2780@tuebingen.mpg.de> <20190430174042.GH5207@magnolia> <20190430190525.GB2780@tuebingen.mpg.de> <20190430191825.GF5217@magnolia> <20190430210724.GD2780@tuebingen.mpg.de> <20190501153643.GL5207@magnolia> <20190501165933.GF2780@tuebingen.mpg.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190501165933.GF2780@tuebingen.mpg.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.4 (2019-03-13) Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 06:59:33PM +0200, Andre Noll wrote: > On Wed, May 01, 08:36, Darrick J. Wong wrote > > > > You could send this patch to the stable list, but my guess is that > > > > they'd prefer a straight backport of all three commits... > > > > > > Hm, cherry-picking the first commit onto 4.9,171 already gives > > > four conflicting files. The conflicts are trivial to resolve (git > > > cherry-pick -xX theirs 21ec54168b36 does it), but that doesn't > > > compile because xfs_btree_query_all() is missing. So e9a2599a249ed > > > (xfs: create a function to query all records in a btree) is needed as > > > well. But then, applying 86210fbebae (xfs: move various type verifiers > > > to common file) on top of that gives non-trivial conflicts. > > > > Ah, I suspected that might happen. Backports are hard. :( > > > > I suppose one saving grace of the patch you sent is that it'll likely > > break the build if anyone ever /does/ attempt a backport of those first > > two commits. Perhaps that is the most practical way forward. > > > > > So, for automatic backporting we would need to cherry-pick even more, > > > and each backported commit should be tested of course. Given this, do > > > you still think Greg prefers a rather large set of straight backports > > > over the simple commit that just pulls in the missing function? > > > > I think you'd have to ask him that, if you decide not to send > > yesterday's patch. > > Let's try. I've added a sentence to the commit message which explains > why a straight backport is not practical, and how to proceed if anyone > wants to backport the earlier commits. > > Greg: Under the given circumstances, would you be willing to accept > the patch below for 4.9? If the xfs maintainers say this is ok, it is fine with me. thanks, greg k-h