On 9/29/23 9:17 AM, Chandan Babu R wrote: > On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 09:20:52 AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: >> On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 16:44:00 +0800 Shiyang Ruan <ruansy.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> But please pick the following patch[1] as well, which fixes failures of >>> xfs55[0-2] cases. >>> >>> [1] >>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20230913102942.601271-1-ruansy.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxx >> >> I guess I can take that xfs patch, as it fixes a DAX patch. I hope the xfs team >> are watching. >> >> But >> >> a) I'm not subscribed to linux-xfs and >> >> b) the changelog fails to describe the userspace-visible effects of >> the bug, so I (and others) are unable to determine which kernel >> versions should be patched. >> >> Please update that changelog and resend? > > I will apply "xfs: correct calculation for agend and blockcount" patch to > xfs-linux Git tree and include it for the next v6.6 pull request to Linus. > > At the outset, It looks like I can pick "mm, pmem, xfs: Introduce > MF_MEM_PRE_REMOVE for unbind" > (i.e. https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20230928103227.250550-1-ruansy.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxx/T/#u) > patch for v6.7 as well. But that will require your Ack. Please let me know > your opinion. > > Also, I will pick "xfs: drop experimental warning for FSDAX" patch for v6.7. While I hate to drag it out even longer, it seems slightly optimistic to drop experimental at the same time as the "last" fix, in case it's not really the last fix. But I don't have super strong feelings about it, and I would be happy to finally see experimental go away. So if those who are more tuned into the details are comfortable with that 6.7 plan, I'll defer to them on the question. Thanks, -Eric
