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=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=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 9C20EC43219 for ; Wed, 1 May 2019 22:38:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74A762075E for ; Wed, 1 May 2019 22:38:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726282AbfEAWiu (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 May 2019 18:38:50 -0400 Received: from mail104.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.246]:60114 "EHLO mail104.syd.optusnet.com.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726144AbfEAWiu (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 May 2019 18:38:50 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 1659 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Wed, 01 May 2019 18:38:48 EDT Received: from dread.disaster.area (pa49-181-171-240.pa.nsw.optusnet.com.au [49.181.171.240]) by mail104.syd.optusnet.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A5FC439C33; Thu, 2 May 2019 08:11:07 +1000 (AEST) Received: from dave by dread.disaster.area with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1hLxRT-0004tM-3S; Thu, 02 May 2019 08:11:07 +1000 Date: Thu, 2 May 2019 08:11:07 +1000 From: Dave Chinner To: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: Andre Noll , Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: xfs: Assertion failed in xfs_ag_resv_init() Message-ID: <20190501221107.GI29573@dread.disaster.area> References: <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> <20190501171529.GB28949@kroah.com> <20190501175129.GH2780@tuebingen.mpg.de> <20190501192822.GM5207@magnolia> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190501192822.GM5207@magnolia> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Optus-CM-Score: 0 X-Optus-CM-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=UJetJGXy c=1 sm=1 tr=0 cx=a_idp_d a=LhzQONXuMOhFZtk4TmSJIw==:117 a=LhzQONXuMOhFZtk4TmSJIw==:17 a=jpOVt7BSZ2e4Z31A5e1TngXxSK0=:19 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=E5NmQfObTbMA:10 a=7-415B0cAAAA:8 a=BAPyJwD9Ct5AMgICnHAA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=biEYGPWJfzWAr4FL6Ov7:22 Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 12:28:22PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 07:51:29PM +0200, Andre Noll wrote: > > On Wed, May 01, 19:15, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote > > > 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. > > > > Darrick said, he's in favor of the patch, so I guess I can add his > > Acked-by. Would you also like to see the ack from Dave (the author > > of the original commit)? > > FWIW it seems fine to me, though Dave [cc'd] might have stronger opinions... Only thing I care about is whether it is QA'd properly. Greg, Sasha, is the 4.9 stable kernel having fstests run on it as part of the release gating? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com