On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 1:07 PM Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 03:01:16PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > Fedora chugs along at the rate of daily upstream Linus snapshots. If > > you're hitting and fixing issues before Fedora users see them, I'm > > curious why Fedora users would ever see them. > > > > Where does the lag come from? Are the fixes queued internally? > > Staged in an upstream subsystem tree? Is there a way for interested > > btrfs people to proactively just get those fixed in Fedora before > > users hit them? > > For this particular example we saw the problem in testing and had a patch on the > mailinglist before you hit the problem. It was in a tree and sent to Linus, and > was merged the day after the bugzilla was reported. So yes before users see > them, unless they are subscribed to the daily snapshots, which I assume is just > for testing right? Or were you guys going to ship 5.3-rc0? > > On one hand I understand all of the consternation around making btrfs bugs > blockers for Fedora, but on the other hand it seems a bit silly to be having > this conversation at all based on hitting a bug that went into the merge window > and then was fixed before rc1 was even cut. Thanks, It is silly, if it's really safe to say that Btrfs won't be the default file system in any release blocking deliverable. Having blocker status was always a means to that end. But right now it's maybe three (?) automated tests that depend on Btrfs working. If Fedora Workstation defaulted to Btrfs, that's dozens or even hundreds of tests? Adam? Bug fix was merged in rc2. The patch on linux-btrfs@ 25 Jul 2019 11:27:29 +0300 which is just before kernel-5.3.0-0.rc1.git3.1.fc31, 2019-07-25 21:01:20 Plausibly it was in all rc0 and rc1 kernels. What if this deadlock were happening in ext4 for all rc0 and rc1 kernels? What questions get asked? How did the bug not get caught by xfstests before it got into linux-next? Does anyone pop a gasket on lkml? Is this just a weird sometimes it happens rarely kind of thing? I don't know the exact nature of the bug, which goes to the kernel team's point that someone who does know needs to tell them the autopsy summary so they can really assess the default fs question. And another question for QA. If it were Btrfs by default for Workstation, would you just convert all the tests that rely only on ext4 now to Btrfs? Or duplicate those tests so you can run them in parallel? How much more testing is that and what's the impact on time and resources? -- Chris Murphy _______________________________________________ Anaconda-devel-list mailing list Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
