Re: [PATCH 5.10 v2 6/7] xfs: reorder iunlink remove operation in xfs_ifree

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

On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 03:37:59PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 1:26 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 01:16:33PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 12:41 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 12:30:13PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 12:04 PM Frank Hofmann <fhofmann@cloudflare.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 6:49 AM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > commit 9a5280b312e2e7898b6397b2ca3cfd03f67d7be1 upstream.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [backport for 5.10.y]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Amir, hi Dave,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've got no objections to backporting this change at all. We've been
> > > > > > using the patch on our internal 5.15 tracker branch happily for
> > > > > > several months now.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Would like to highlight though that it's currently not yet merged in
> > > > > > linux-stable 5.15 branch either (it's in 5.19 and mainline alright).
> > > > > > If this gets queued for 5.10 then maybe it also should be for 5.15 ?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Frank,
> > > > >
> > > > > Quoting from my cover letter:
> > > > >
> > > > > Patches 6-7 in this 5.10.y update have not been applied to 5.15.y yet.
> > > > > I pointed Leah's attention to these patches and she said she will
> > > > > include them in a following 5.15.y update.
> > > >
> > > > And as you know, this means I can't take this series at all until that
> > > > series is ready, so to help us out, in the future, just don't even send
> > > > them until they are all ready together.
> > > >
> > >
> > > What?
> > >
> > > You cannot take backports to 5.10.y before they are applied to 5.15.y?
> > > Since when?
> >
> > Since always.
> >
> > Why would you ever want someone to upgrade from an older tree (like
> > 5.10.y) to a newer one (5.15.y) and have a regression?
> >
> 
> That is certainly not a goal when backporting fixes to 5.10.y, but it
> can happen as a by-product of the decentralized nature of testing
> backports.
> 
> But it did not bother you when xfs patches were applied to 5.4.y and
> no xfs patches at all applied to 5.10.y for two years?

I've been bothered by xfs patches for so long that really, I didn't care
as the maintainers didn't seem bothered either :)

But now that everything is working properly, let's do it correctly
please.

> > So we always try to make sure patches are always applied to newer trees
> > first.  Yes, sometimes we miss this and make mistakes, but it's always
> > been this way and we fix that whenever it happens accidentally.
> >
> 
> That is my intention.
> I will try to keep to that rule in the future.
> I would have waited for the patches to land in 5.15.y, but
> Leah got distracted by another task so I decided to not wait,
> knowing that the patches are already in her queue.
> 
> > I'll drop this series from my review queue for now until the 5.15.y
> > series shows up.
> 
> Please don't drop the series.
> Please drop patches 6-7 if you must
> Or if you insist I can re-post patches 1-5.

Please resend as just the correct ones that you want so I know what to
pick exactly.

thanks,

greg k-h