On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 06:59:33PM +0200, Andre Noll wrote: > On Wed, May 01, 08:36, Darrick J. Wong wrote > > > > You could send this patch to the stable list, but my guess is that > > > > they'd prefer a straight backport of all three commits... > > > > > > Hm, cherry-picking the first commit onto 4.9,171 already gives > > > four conflicting files. The conflicts are trivial to resolve (git > > > cherry-pick -xX theirs 21ec54168b36 does it), but that doesn't > > > compile because xfs_btree_query_all() is missing. So e9a2599a249ed > > > (xfs: create a function to query all records in a btree) is needed as > > > well. But then, applying 86210fbebae (xfs: move various type verifiers > > > to common file) on top of that gives non-trivial conflicts. > > > > Ah, I suspected that might happen. Backports are hard. :( > > > > I suppose one saving grace of the patch you sent is that it'll likely > > break the build if anyone ever /does/ attempt a backport of those first > > two commits. Perhaps that is the most practical way forward. > > > > > So, for automatic backporting we would need to cherry-pick even more, > > > and each backported commit should be tested of course. Given this, do > > > you still think Greg prefers a rather large set of straight backports > > > over the simple commit that just pulls in the missing function? > > > > I think you'd have to ask him that, if you decide not to send > > yesterday's patch. > > Let's try. I've added a sentence to the commit message which explains > why a straight backport is not practical, and how to proceed if anyone > wants to backport the earlier commits. > > Greg: Under the given circumstances, would you be willing to accept > the patch below for 4.9? If the xfs maintainers say this is ok, it is fine with me. thanks, greg k-h
