Re: xfs: Assertion failed in xfs_ag_resv_init()

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 01:44:40PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> 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?

[actually adding Sasha to the email thread this time...]