On 1/23/19 3:37 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 11:52:02PM +0000, Hans van Kranenburg wrote:
>> Hi Sasha,
>>
>> On 1/8/19 8:25 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>> From: Hans van Kranenburg <hans.van.kranenburg@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> [ Upstream commit baf92114c7e6dd6124aa3d506e4bc4b694da3bc3 ]
>>>
>>> Commit 92e222df7b "btrfs: alloc_chunk: fix DUP stripe size handling"
>>> fixed calculating the stripe_size for a new DUP chunk.
>>
>> That one also ended up as:
>>
>> 4.14-stable
>> 0136bd7238b2cb8238426af4183ed0b02165c3f9
>>
>> 4.9-stable
>> 8890bae03f4dba1c2292e5445682b556af4e8f1b
>>
>> 4.4-stable
>> 97c3e46ef53748278286fc09dcc30b138d6677c4
>>
>> 3.16.57-rc1
>> f68f46284a199f6837c1d5b94a6ae979a2cc463c
>>
>> While hitting the failure condition without adding "crafting" steps to
>> make it exactly match the scenario is unlikely, it might be good if we
>> just go all the way back with this regression fix?
>
> What do you mean with "all the way back"?
Oh, apologies for not using unambigious phrasing.
I mean, it seems the autoselection only found 92e222df7b in places where
it's actually called 92e222df7b, and not where it was cherry-picked.
So, for my own understanding: If I have to do something like this ever
again, then should I have added it like this inside baf92114c?
Fixes: 92e222df7b ("btrfs: alloc_chunk: fix DUP stripe size handling")
Fixes: 0136bd7238 ("btrfs: alloc_chunk: fix DUP stripe size handling")
Fixes: 8890bae03f ("btrfs: alloc_chunk: fix DUP stripe size handling")
Fixes: 97c3e46ef5 ("btrfs: alloc_chunk: fix DUP stripe size handling")
Fixes: f68f46284a ("btrfs: alloc_chunk: fix DUP stripe size handling")
Thanks for your patience, :)
--
Hans van Kranenburg
