On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 9:06 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > FYI, below is the 5.10-stable backport I have been testing earlier this > week that fixes a bugzilla reported hang: > > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=214767 > > I was just going to submit it to the stable maintaines today after > beeing out of the holiday, but if you want to add it to this queue > that is fine with me as well. > Let me take it for a short spin in out xfs stable test environment, since this env has caught one regression with an allegedly safe fix. This env has also VMs with old xfsprogs, which is kind of important to test since those LTS patches may end up in distros with old xfsprogs. If all is well, I'll send your patch later today to stable maintainers with this first for-5.10 series. > --- > From 8e0464752b24f2b3919e8e92298759d116b283eb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2021 08:21:51 -0700 > Subject: xfs: Fix CIL throttle hang when CIL space used going backwards > Damn! this patch slipped through my process (even though I did see the correspondence on the list). My (human) process has eliminated the entire 38 patch series https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20210603052240.171998-1-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ without noticing the fix that was inside it. I did read every cover letter carefully for optimization series that I eliminated to look for important fixes and more than once I did pick singular fix patches from optimization/cleanup series. In this case, I guess Dave was not aware of the severity of the bug fixed when he wrote the cover letter(?), but the fact that the series is not only an improvement was not mentioned. It's good that we have many vectors to find stable fixes :) Cheers, Amir.
