On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 12:28:22PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 07:51:29PM +0200, Andre Noll wrote: > > On Wed, May 01, 19:15, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote > > > On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 06:59:33PM +0200, Andre Noll wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 01, 08:36, Darrick J. Wong wrote > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > Ah, I suspected that might happen. Backports are hard. :( > > > > > > > > > > I suppose one saving grace of the patch you sent is that it'll likely > > > > > break the build if anyone ever /does/ attempt a backport of those first > > > > > two commits. Perhaps that is the most practical way forward. > > > > > > > > > > > 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 think you'd have to ask him that, if you decide not to send > > > > > yesterday's patch. > > > > > > > > Let's try. I've added a sentence to the commit message which explains > > > > why a straight backport is not practical, and how to proceed if anyone > > > > wants to backport the earlier commits. > > > > > > > > Greg: Under the given circumstances, would you be willing to accept > > > > the patch below for 4.9? > > > > > > If the xfs maintainers say this is ok, it is fine with me. > > > > Darrick said, he's in favor of the patch, so I guess I can add his > > Acked-by. Would you also like to see the ack from Dave (the author > > of the original commit)? > > FWIW it seems fine to me, though Dave [cc'd] might have stronger opinions... Only thing I care about is whether it is QA'd properly. Greg, Sasha, is the 4.9 stable kernel having fstests run on it as part of the release gating? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
