On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 04:24:30PM +0200, Marcus Hoffmann wrote: > On 12.05.23 14:19, Greg KH wrote: > > 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? > > > > We will move to 6.1.y soon-ish (we are downstream from the rpi kernel tree) > Is this problem fixed there though? I couldn't really find anything > related to that in the tree? Test it and see! And if you are downstream from the RPI kernel tree, my sympathies, that's a tough place to be given the speed of it updating (i.e. not at all...) good luck! greg k-h
