On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 08:11:07AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 12:28:22PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 07:51:29PM +0200, Andre Noll wrote:
> On Wed, May 01, 19:15, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote
> > 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.
>
> Darrick said, he's in favor of the patch, so I guess I can add his
> Acked-by. Would you also like to see the ack from Dave (the author
> of the original commit)?
FWIW it seems fine to me, though Dave [cc'd] might have stronger opinions...
Only thing I care about is whether it is QA'd properly. Greg, Sasha,
is the 4.9 stable kernel having fstests run on it as part of the
release gating?
I test only for 5.1 and 4.19 and this point. I don't have a solid
baseline for anything older.
--
Thanks,
Sasha
