On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 09:35:17 AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > 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. Sorry, I now realize that the patch doesn't yet have a Reviewed-by tag. I will pick the patch for v6.7 only if get its one. -- Chandan
