On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 05:26:26PM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote:
> > > David, how do you prefer to proceed here? Do you want me to fix this
> > > and resend the patchset?
> >
> > No need to resend, I'll fix it locally, the patch in next-fixes was the
> > old one so I'll sync it with what's in our development for-next (and
> > also check the others just in case). I'll also check and update all the
> > branches involved in the for-next pulled by linux-next.
>
> Btw, I noticed that only the 2nd patch ("btrfs: use sector numbers as
> keys for the dirty extents xarray") was updated,
> so now it doesn't break 32 bits builds anymore.
>
> However the next patch in the series ("btrfs: qgroups: remove bytenr
> field from struct btrfs_qgroup_extent_record") wasn't updated,
> and it now breaks 32 bits builds. At the same location, it needs to
> use "bytenr" instead of "record->bytenr".
My bad, I manually tested the build combinations in the first patch only
as it went to Linus' tree. I did not get any other linux-next build
failures though.
> Do you want me to update the patches and send them to the list?
>
> There's one more change that needs to be squashed (to that last patch)
> that triggers a use-after-free reported by syzbot, which is:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/02fc507b62b19be2348fc08de8b13bd7af1a440e.1728922973.git.fdmanana@xxxxxxxx/
Ok, please send it and feel free to update the patch in for-next too.
Thanks.
