On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 11:21:27AM +0200, Marcus Hoffmann wrote: > Hi, > > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 18:57, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > > > Yeah, sorry, I didn't see it since it was in an attachment as opposed > > to with an explicit [PATCH] subject line. > > > > And at this point, the data=journal writeback patches have landed in > > the ext4/dev tree, and while we could try to see if we could land this > > before the next merge window, I'm worried about merge or semantic > > conflicts of having both patches in a tree at one time. > > > > I guess we could send it to Linus, let it get backported into stable, > > and then revert it during the merge window, ahead of applying the > > data=journal cleanup patch series. But that seems a bit ugly. Or we > > could ask for an exception from the stable kernel folks, after I do a > > full set of xfstests runs on it. (Of course, I don't think anyone has > > been able to create a reliable reproducer, so all we can do is to test > > for regression failures.) > > > > Jan, Greg, what do you think? > > We've noticed this appearing for us as well now (on 5.15 with > data=journaled) and I wanted to ask what the status here is. Did any fix > here make it into a stable kernel yet? If not, I suppose I can still > apply the patch posted above as a quick-fix until this (or another > solution) makes it into the stable tree? Any reason you can't just move to 6.1.y instead? What prevents that? thanks, greg k-h
