On Tue, Apr 30, 12:18, Darrick J. Wong wrote > > commit f847bda4d612744ff1812788417bd8df41a806d3 > > Author: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Mon Nov 19 13:31:08 2018 -0800 > > > > xfs: finobt AG reserves don't consider last AG can be a runt > > > > This is a backport of upstream commit c08768977b9 and the part of > > 21ec54168b36 which is needed by c08768977b9. > > You could send this patch to the stable list, but my guess is that > they'd prefer a straight backport of all three commits... Hm, cherry-picking the first commit onto 4.9,171 already gives four conflicting files. The conflicts are trivial to resolve (git cherry-pick -xX theirs 21ec54168b36 does it), but that doesn't compile because xfs_btree_query_all() is missing. So e9a2599a249ed (xfs: create a function to query all records in a btree) is needed as well. But then, applying 86210fbebae (xfs: move various type verifiers to common file) on top of that gives non-trivial conflicts. So, for automatic backporting we would need to cherry-pick even more, and each backported commit should be tested of course. Given this, do you still think Greg prefers a rather large set of straight backports over the simple commit that just pulls in the missing function? I guess the important question is how much impact this issue has on production systems (i.e., on CONFIG_XFS_DEBUG=n kernels, where the assert statement is not compiled in). If the unpatched xfs_inobt_max_size() is very unlikely to cause problems on such systems, we might as well live with it. Thanks Andre -- Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology Max-Planck-Ring 5, 72076 Tübingen, Germany. Phone: (+49) 7071 601 829 http://people.tuebingen.mpg.de/maan/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
