On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 03:54:00PM +0000, Hans van Kranenburg wrote:
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, :)
Ah, the scripts have enough "brains" to deal with these on their own, so
no need to annotate that much.
This patch wasn't applied to older trees because it didn't cherry-pick
cleanly on top of them. Looking at it now, it seems to depend on
793ff2c88c6 ("btrfs: volumes: Cleanup stripe size calculation") which
can possibly be picked up if it makes sense.
--
Thanks,
Sasha
