Hi Kuntal! Thanks for proposing these patches. The current process for backporting to xfs requires that patches are tested for any regressions via xfstests. I believe Amir was last in charge of 5.10.y. I think he is still on vacation, but even once he returns, I'm not sure if he will be maintaining this branch any longer so it seems 5.10.y might be left unsupported when it comes to XFS. If you'd like to take over for 5.10.y to keep backports flowing, we'd be happy to have you join our efforts :) - leah On Mon, Oct 7, 2024 at 12:48 PM Kuntal Nayak <kuntal.nayak@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Thank you, Greg, for getting back to me. Following is the order for patches, > > 1. xfs: No need for inode number error injection in __xfs_dir3_data_check > 2. xfs: don't walk off the end of a directory data block > 3. xfs: add bounds checking to xlog_recover_process_data > > > Hello xfs-team, could you kindly assist me in reviewing the 3 patches > listed above for LTS v5.10? > > ------ > Sincerely, > Kuntal > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 1:00 AM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 03:39:56PM -0700, Kuntal Nayak wrote: > > > From: lei lu <llfamsec@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > [ Upstream commit fb63435b7c7dc112b1ae1baea5486e0a6e27b196 ] > > > > Also, what is the ordering here? Should I just guess?
