On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 07:18:40PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 6:55 PM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 08:10:56PM +0800, Alvin Zheng wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I was using kernel v4.19.y and found that it cannot pass the > > > generic/538 due to data corruption. I notice that upstream has fix this > > > issue with commit 2032a8a27b5cc0f578d37fa16fa2494b80a0d00a. Will v4.19.y > > > backport this patch? > > > > Hey Alvin, > > > > Thanks for Bringing this to attention. I'll look into this a bit more. > > Time for a new set of stable fixes for v4.19.y. Of course, I welcome > > Briant's feedback, but if he's busy I'll still look into it. > > > > FWIW, I tested -g quick on xfs with reflink=1,rmapbt=1 and did not > observe any regressions from v4.19.55. As you may recall I test all agreed upon configurations. Just one is not enough. > Luis, sorry I forgot to CC you on a request I just sent to consider 4 xfs > patches for stable to fix generic/529 and generic/530: > > 3b50086f0c0d xfs: don't overflow xattr listent buffer > e1f6ca113815 xfs: rename m_inotbt_nores to m_finobt_nores > 15a268d9f263 xfs: reserve blocks for ifree transaction during log recovery > c4a6bf7f6cc7 xfs: don't ever put nlink > 0 inodes on the unlinked list > > If you can run those patches through your setup that would be great. Sure, it may take 1-2 weeks, just a heads up. If you're OK with waiting then great. Otherwise I personally cannot vouch for them. What types of tests did you run and what configurations? Luis
