On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 11:50 PM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 04:33:15PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 3:11 PM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 02:46:09PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: >> >> OK, found the patches the fix soft lockups in generic/269 and >> >> assertion in generic/232, so expunging those 2 tests from v4.15.y >> >> test runs. >> > >> > Which patches are those? We should probably backport them to 4.15-stable. >> >> Probably, but I guess Darrick has those in his TODO. >> >> There is this series that refers to failure in generic/232: >> https://marc.info/?l=linux-xfs&m=151701545720824&w=2 >> >> These 2 commits refer to generic/269 specifically in commit message: >> 70c57dcd606f xfs: skip CoW writes past EOF when writeback races with truncate >> be78ff0e7277 xfs: recheck reflink / dirty page status before freeing >> CoW reservations >> and the thread on the second commit also mentions generic/270 >> (I found out the hard way that it also soft locks). >> >> But there are surely more patches for stable in master. >> I recon CC: stable and/or Fixes: tags could have been helpful, >> but I don't see any of those in v4.16-rcX from the core xfs developers. > > AS I always say: if you want to maintain a stable backport kernel > with all the fixes that go into the bleeding edge, you're more than > welcome to do it. > > Everyone else is flat out just keeping up with on going development > and fixing bugs in the kernel as it's moving forward. So if you have > the need for stable backports, please keep backporting patches you > need, testing them and asking the stable maintainers to include > them. > Greg, I tested the patch in question per Darrick's request. I found no regressions with full "auto" run on xfs with reflinks enabled. Please include this patch in stable 4.15. Dave, It is often the case, though maybe not always, that the author of a patch has the knowledge of the 'Fixes' commit and/or the stable kernel version patch is relevant to or would easily apply to. It is therefore a relatively low effort for a developer to include this information as courtesy to stable maintainers, whether they are maintaining kernel.org stable kernels or distro stable kernels. That's just my opinion. Christoph/Darrick, FYI, with stable kernel 4.15.y, I found the following failures with -g auto: Assert (mostly on quota related): generic/232 xfs/222 xfs/305 xfs/440 xfs/442 Soft lockup (likely fixed by be78ff0e7277): generic/269 generic/270 xfs/442 Failures (output mismatch): xfs/170 xfs/191-input-validation xfs/348 Thanks, Amir. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
