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=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, 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 11530C43219 for ; Thu, 2 May 2019 11:44:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D199D20873 for ; Thu, 2 May 2019 11:44:43 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1556797483; bh=+VA/Sm4g5ggag5aOAQ0Qq/PNUKAKGB+PsonZD7CEq7Y=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=SajdMedjDCPqDzClHRbY/VVxbKmyrXwvDI6aD4qXY6CGZ3/7/X9CFp6VggiPJqDN3 73jHL4ezA3UP24wGFrSZ5OpT4r/1VSpYJRAdhBxZBvHYfMeYRJVbJCbLvaNQw1eKZM iwEPKc/GCUE1Rhlafu3HNZAd19AhnGLMIcTd1xbE= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726321AbfEBLon (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 May 2019 07:44:43 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:59912 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726282AbfEBLon (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 May 2019 07:44:43 -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 C398A2081C; Thu, 2 May 2019 11:44:41 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1556797482; bh=+VA/Sm4g5ggag5aOAQ0Qq/PNUKAKGB+PsonZD7CEq7Y=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=uLDjO5wuO9wZ1GlZJahRBosdEVdUJGBGfNhUIZRe5pWu2pelKJlT99YPL08pS6sKE jqM3Jk5BcsnBAAm6MhTbgqLUNRpiGC5CgFpo+bCL3FBSlx733MRJSpMduzudgli9ZN WCZf5uvQyV0Q8CQCp0//ehzcHn/7in3hty10FrhE= Date: Thu, 2 May 2019 13:44:40 +0200 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Dave Chinner Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" , Andre Noll , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: xfs: Assertion failed in xfs_ag_resv_init() Message-ID: <20190502114440.GB21563@kroah.com> References: <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> <20190501221107.GI29573@dread.disaster.area> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190501221107.GI29573@dread.disaster.area> 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 Thu, May 02, 2019 at 08:11:07AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > 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? I do not know about fstests, I know Linaro was looking into doing it as part of the test suites that they verify before I do a release. But I doubt it's run on an XFS filesystem. Sasha was doing some work in this area though, Sasha? greg k-h