On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 05:14:41AM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote: > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 09:22:03AM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > >On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 09:40:19AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > >>I stopped my tests at 5 billion ops yesterday (i.e. 20 billion ops > >>aggregate) to focus on testing the copy_file_range() changes, but > >>Darrick's tests are still ongoing and have passed 40 billion ops in > >>aggregate over the past few days. > >> > >>The reason we are running these so long is that we've seen fsx data > >>corruption failures after 12+ hours of runtime and hundreds of > >>millions of ops. Hence the testing for backported fixes will need to > >>replicate these test runs across multiple configurations for > >>multiple days before we have any confidence that we've actually > >>fixed the data corruptions and not introduced any new ones. > >> > >>If you pull only a small subset of the fixes, the fsx will still > >>fail and we have no real way of actually verifying that there have > >>been no regression introduced by the backport. IOWs, there's a > >>/massive/ amount of QA needed for ensuring that these backports work > >>correctly. > >> > >>Right now the XFS developers don't have the time or resources > >>available to validate stable backports are correct and regression > >>fre because we are focussed on ensuring the upstream fixes we've > >>already made (and are still writing) are solid and reliable. > > > >Ok, that's fine, so users of XFS should wait until the 4.20 release > >before relying on it? :) > > It's getting to the point that with the amount of known issues with XFS > on LTS kernels it makes sense to mark it as CONFIG_BROKEN. Really? Where are the bug reports? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
