Re: [PATCH 5.10 0/2] Fix xfs/179 for 5.10 stable

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 10:39:44AM +0800, Guoqing Jiang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 8/4/23 23:47, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 05:36:50PM +0800, Guoqing Jiang wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > With the two patches applied, xfs/179 can pass in 5.10.188. Otherwise I got
> > > 
> > > [root@localhost xfstests]# ./check xfs/179
> > > FSTYP         -- xfs (non-debug)
> > > PLATFORM      -- Linux/x86_64 localhost 5.10.188-default #14 SMP Thu Aug 3 15:23:19 CST 2023
> > > MKFS_OPTIONS  -- -f /dev/loop1
> > > MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o context=system_u:object_r:root_t:s0 /dev/loop1 /mnt/scratch
> > > 
> > > xfs/179 1s ... [failed, exit status 1]- output mismatch (see /root/xfstests/results//xfs/179.out.bad)
> > >      --- tests/xfs/179.out	2023-07-13 16:12:27.000000000 +0800
> > >      +++ /root/xfstests/results//xfs/179.out.bad	2023-08-03 16:55:38.173787911 +0800
> > >      @@ -8,3 +8,5 @@
> > >       Check scratch fs
> > >       Remove reflinked files
> > >       Check scratch fs
> > >      +xfs_repair fails
> > >      +(see /root/xfstests/results//xfs/179.full for details)
> > >      ...
> > >      (Run 'diff -u /root/xfstests/tests/xfs/179.out /root/xfstests/results//xfs/179.out.bad'  to see the entire diff)
> > > 
> > > HINT: You _MAY_ be missing kernel fix:
> > >        b25d1984aa88 xfs: estimate post-merge refcounts correctly
> > > 
> > > Ran: xfs/179
> > > Failures: xfs/179
> > > Failed 1 of 1 tests
> > > 
> > > Please review if they are approriate for 5.10 stable.
> > Seems fine to me, but ... there is no maintainer for 5.10; is your
> > employer willing to support this LTS kernel?
> 
> Hi Darrick,
> 
> Thanks for your review! I think Amir is the maintainer for 5.10 😉. I can
> help
> if needed since our kernel is heavily based on 5.10 stable. We also run
> tests
> against 5.10 stable, that is why I send fixes patches for it.
> 
> Hi Greg,
> 
> Could you consider add the two to your list? Thank you!

Sorry, but as these would only be in th 5.10.y release, and not in any
newer stable kernel, you would have a regression if you moved to a newer
stable kernel branch, right?

Because of that, no, I can't take this, nor should you want me to, as
you would have a regression if you upgraded, right?

I'll be glad to do so if we have backports for all relevant stable
kernels.

thanks,

greg k-h