On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 2:45 AM Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 01:06:30PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Previously posted candidates for 5.10.y followed chronological release > > order. > > > > Parts 1 and 2 of fixes from v5.10..v5.12 have already been applied to > > v5.10.121. > > > > Part 3 (from 5.13) has already been posted for review [3] on June 6, > > but following feedback from Dave, I changed my focus to get the same > > set of patches tested and reviewed for 5.10.y/5.15.y. > > > > I do want to ask you guys to also find time to review part 3, because > > we have a lot of catching up to do for 5.10.y, so we need to chew at > > this debt at a reasonable rate. > > > > This post has the matching set of patches for 5.10.y that goes with > > Leah's first set of candidates for 5.15.y [1]. > > > > Most of the fixes are from v5.15..v5.17 except for patch 11 (v5.18-rc1). > > All fix patches have been tagged with Fixes: by the author. > > > > The patches have been soaking in kdepops since Sunday. They passed more > > than 30 auto group runs with several different versions of xfsprogs. > > > > The differences from Leah's 5.15.y: > > - It is 11 patches and not 8 because of dependencies > > - Patches 6,7 are non-fixes backported as dependency to patch 8 - > > they have "backported .* for dependency" in their commit message > > - Patches 3,4,11 needed changes to apply to 5.10.y - they have a > > "backport" related comment in their commit message to explain what > > changes were needed > > - Patch 10 is a fix from v5.12 that is re-posted as a dependency for > > patch 11 > > > > Darrick, > > > > As the author patches 4,11 and sole reviewer of patch 3 (a.k.a > > the non-cleanly applied patches), please take a closer look at those. > > > > Patch 10 has been dropped from my part 2 candidates following concerns > > raised by Dave and is now being re-posted following feedback from > > Christian and Christoph [2]. > > > > If there are still concerns about patches 10 or 11, please raise a flag. > > I can drop either of these patches before posting to stable if anyone > > feels that they need more time to soak in master. > > At the current moment (keep in mind that I have 2,978 more emails to get Oh boy! Thank you for getting to my series so soon. > through before I'm caught up), I think it's safe to say that for patches > 1-5: > > Acked-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> > > (patch 9 also, but see the reply I just sent for that one about grabbing > the sync_fs fixes too) > > The log changes are going to take more time to go through, since that > stuff is always tricky and /not/ something for me to be messing with at > 4:45pm. Let's make it easier for you then. I already decided to defer patches 9-11. Since you already started looking at patches 6-8, if you want to finish that review let me know and I will wait, but if you prefer, I can also defer the log changes 6-8 and post them along with the other log fixes from 5.14. That means that I have a 5 patch series ACKed and ready to go to stable. Let me know what you prefer. Thanks, Amir.
