On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 7:20 PM Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 10:33:04AM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > This is a resend of the series that was posted 3 weeks ago [v1]. > > The backports in this series are from circa v5.12..v5.13. > > The remaining queue of tested 5.10 backports [1] contains 25 more patches > > from v5.13..v5.19-rc1. > > > > There have been no comments on the first post except for Dave's request > > to collaborate the backports review process with Leah who had earlier > > sent out another series of backports for 5.15.y. > > > > Following Dave's request, I had put this series a side to collaborate > > the shared review of 5.15/5.10 series with Leah and now that the shared > > series has been posted to stable, I am re-posting to request ACKs on this > > 5.10.y specific series. > > > > There are four user visible fixes in this series, one patch for dependency > > ("rename variable mp") and two patches to improve testability of LTS. > > Aha, I had wondered why the journal_info thing was in this branch, and > if that would even fit under the usual stable rules... > > > Specifically, I selected the fix ("use current->journal_info for > > detecting transaction recursion") after I got a false positive assert > > while testing LTS kernel with XFS_DEBUG and at another incident, it > > helped me triage a regression that would have been harder to trace > > back to the offending code otherwise. > > ...but clearly maintainers have been hitting this, so that's ok by /me/ to > have it. If nothing else, XFS doesn't support nested transactions, so any > weird stuff that falls out was already a dangerous bug. Exactly. > > Acked-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> > I am not going to post this to xfs list again with Acked-by before posting to stable, because this is the second posting already with no changes since v1. I am going to wait until Greg picks up the already posted series for 5.10 and 5.15 - it looks like he is also on vacation... Thanks! Amir.