Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] xfs: stable fixes for v4.19.y

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 01:50:57PM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 09, 2019 at 08:32:01AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 11:48:29AM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 09:06:55AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 08:54:17AM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > > > > Kernel stable team,
> > > > > 
> > > > > here is a v2 respin of my XFS stable patches for v4.19.y. The only
> > > > > change in this series is adding the upstream commit to the commit log,
> > > > > and I've now also Cc'd stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx as well. No other issues
> > > > > were spotted or raised with this series.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Reviews, questions, or rants are greatly appreciated.
> > > > 
> > > > Test results?
> > > > 
> > > > The set of changes look fine themselves, but as always, the proof is
> > > > in the testing...
> > > 
> > > I've first established a baseline for v4.19.18 with fstests using
> > > a series of different sections to test against. I annotated the
> > > failures on an expunge list and then use that expunge list to confirm
> > > no regressions -- no failures if we skip the failures already known for
> > > v4.19.18.
> > > 
> > > Each different configuration I test against I use a section for. I only
> > > test x86_64 for now but am starting to create a baseline for ppc64le.
> > > 
> > > The sections I use:
> > > 
> > >   * xfs
> > >   * xfs_nocrc
> > >   * xfs_nocrc_512
> > >   * xfs_reflink
> > >   * xfs_reflink_1024
> > >   * xfs_logdev
> > >   * xfs_realtimedev
> > 
> > Yup, that seems to cover most common things :)
> 
> To be clear in the future I hope to also have a baseline for:
> 
>   * xfs_bigblock
> 
> But that is *currently* [0] only possible on the following architectures
> with the respective kernel config:
> 
> aarch64:
> CONFIG_ARM64_64K_PAGES=y
> 
> ppc64le:
> CONFIG_PPC_64K_PAGES=y
> 
> [0] Someone is working on 64k pages on x86 I think?

Yup, I am, but that got derailed by wanting fsx coverage w/
dedup/clone/copy_file_range before going any further with it. That
was one of the triggers that lead to finding all those data
corruption and API problems late last year...

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx



[Index of Archives]     [XFS Filesystem Development (older mail)]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Trails]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux