On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 09:10:25PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 10:51:18AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 at 10:26, Linus Torvalds > > <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > That said, the quota dependency is quite odd, since normally I > > > wouldn't expect the quota code to really even trigger much during > > > boot. When it triggers that consistently, and that early during boot, > > > I would expect others to have reported more of this. > > > > > > Strange. > > > > Hmm. I do think the quota list handling has some odd things going on. > > And it did change with the whole ->dq_free thing. > > > > Some of it is just bad: > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_QUOTA_DEBUG > > /* sanity check */ > > BUG_ON(!list_empty(&dquot->dq_free)); > > #endif > > > > is done under a spinlock, and if it ever triggers, the machine is > > dead. Dammit, I *hate* how people use BUG_ON() for assertions. It's a > > disgrace. That should be a WARN_ON_ONCE(). > > In my configuration > > CONFIG_QUOTA=y > CONFIG_QUOTA_NETLINK_INTERFACE=y > # CONFIG_QUOTA_DEBUG is not set > CONFIG_QUOTA_TREE=y > # CONFIG_QFMT_V1 is not set > CONFIG_QFMT_V2=y > CONFIG_QUOTACTL=y > > > And it does have quite a bit of list-related changes, with the whole > > series from Baokun Li changing how the ->dq_free list works. > > > > The fact that it consistently bisects to the merge is still odd. > > Exactly! Imre suggested to test the merge point itself, so > far I tested the result of the merge in the upstream, but not > the branch/tag that has been merged. > > Let's see if I have time this week for that. This hunting is a bit exhaustive. Meanwhile a wild idea, can it be some git (automatic) conflict resolution that makes that merge affect another (not related to the main contents of the merge) files? Like upstream has one base, the merge has another which is older/newer in the history? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
