On Wed, Dec 04, 2024 at 10:42:43PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Wed, Dec 04, 2024 at 07:26:54PM -0600, Bill O'Donnell wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 03, 2024 at 07:02:23PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Here are even more bugfixes for 6.13 that have been accumulating since > > > 6.12 was released. > > > > > > If you're going to start using this code, I strongly recommend pulling > > > from my git trees, which are linked below. > > > > > > With a bit of luck, this should all go splendidly. > > > Comments and questions are, as always, welcome. > > > > > > --D > > > > Hi Darrick- > > > > I must ask, why are these constant bug fixes and fixes for fixes, and > > fixes for fixes for fixes often appearing? It's worrying that xfs is > > Roughly speaking, the ~35 bugfixes can be split into three categories: > > 1) Our vaunted^Wshitty review process didn't catch various coding bugs, > and testing didn't trip over them until I started (ab)using precommit > hooks for spot checking of inode/dquot/buffer log items. You give little time for the review process. > > 2) Most of the metadir/rtgroups fixes are for things that hch reworked > towards the end of the six years the patchset has been under > development, and that introduced bugs. Did it make things easier for a > second person to understand? Yes. No. > > 3) The rest are mostly cases of the authors not fully understanding the > subtleties of that which they were constructing (myself included!) and > lucking out that the errors cancelled each other out until someone > started wanting to use that code for a slightly different purpose, which > wouldn't be possible until the bug finally got fixed. > > 4) The dquot buffer changes have been a known problem since dchinner > decided that RMW cycles in the AIL with inode buffers was having very > bad effects on reclaim performance. Nobody stepped up to convert dquots > (even though I noted this at the time) so here I am years later because > the mm got pissy at us in 6.12. > > 5) XFS lit up a lot of new functionality this year, which means the code > is ripe with bugfixing opportunities where cognitive friction comes into > play. I call bullshit. You guys are fast and loose with your patches. Giving little time for review and soaking. > > > becoming rather dodgy these days. Do things need to be this > > complicated? > > Yeah, they do. We left behind the kindly old world where people didn't > feed computers fuzzed datafiles and nobody got fired for a computer > crashing periodically. Nowadays it seems that everything has to be > bulletproofed AND fast. :( Cop-out answer. > > --D > > > -Bill > > > > > > > > > > kernel git tree: > > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/djwong/xfs-linux.git/log/?h=proposed-fixes-6.13 > > > --- > > > Commits in this patchset: > > > * xfs: don't move nondir/nonreg temporary repair files to the metadir namespace > > > * xfs: don't crash on corrupt /quotas dirent > > > * xfs: check pre-metadir fields correctly > > > * xfs: fix zero byte checking in the superblock scrubber > > > * xfs: return from xfs_symlink_verify early on V4 filesystems > > > * xfs: port xfs_ioc_start_commit to multigrain timestamps > > > --- > > > fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_symlink_remote.c | 4 ++ > > > fs/xfs/scrub/agheader.c | 66 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------- > > > fs/xfs/scrub/tempfile.c | 3 ++ > > > fs/xfs/xfs_exchrange.c | 14 ++++---- > > > fs/xfs/xfs_qm.c | 7 ++++ > > > 5 files changed, 71 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > >
