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=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,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 947BFC43219 for ; Thu, 2 May 2019 12:34:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6504B2089E for ; Thu, 2 May 2019 12:34:17 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1556800457; bh=NxDhNcPC9b2DaP6zL6IsSHHIPnpF2eftPCpb95zbKKs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=WTjDKBYar3rsXt8g86SeBz0RBuNtY4m5TpiXaJO3RyuRU5B5zs+Fv97DwQ6UXT8RO aXZ7eKBCSV19+SInwuHB8nNAm1nI5mF9Pstx5pUc/aIfrBhXNub0naD4WcOeWqbxRj kNEjpA5Je+QpkPmjGxfSuqxL4FJxfnoWv+53uBQY= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726267AbfEBMeQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 May 2019 08:34:16 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:57352 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726268AbfEBMeQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 May 2019 08:34:16 -0400 Received: from localhost (adsl-173-228-226-134.prtc.net [173.228.226.134]) (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 7AF06205C9; Thu, 2 May 2019 12:34:15 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1556800455; bh=NxDhNcPC9b2DaP6zL6IsSHHIPnpF2eftPCpb95zbKKs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=jFztuVhcLRP+O7rpn5jno7Acw6O/7a+oMryWRRphUTY4fLqC7J0dNopWM7nvL8wtZ denOx1N80jHURFpowmR+cjx4zn1TXn+Z2G7sD6eEWwIMwi3WRZ6BQZPdPJpwD50Kz1 AA02lTRV2dusq29rowDLli3oW3F4e+nUc+0T2jYw= Date: Thu, 2 May 2019 08:34:14 -0400 From: Sasha Levin To: Dave Chinner Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" , 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: <20190502123414.GA11584@sasha-vm> 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; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190501221107.GI29573@dread.disaster.area> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) 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 test only for 5.1 and 4.19 and this point. I don't have a solid baseline for anything older. -- Thanks, Sasha