On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 06:52:21PM +0100, David Sterba wrote: > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 04:34:27PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 04:15:46PM +0100, David Sterba wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 03:50:36PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 02:40:31PM +0000, fdmanana@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > As this is a one-off patch, I need the btrfs maintainers to ack this and > > > > really justify why we can't take the larger patch or patch series here > > > > instead, as that is almost always the correct thing to do instead. > > > > > > Acked-by: David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxxx> > > > > > > The full backport would be patches > > > > > > ecfdc08b8cc6 btrfs: remove dio iomap DSYNC workaround > > > a42fa643169d btrfs: call iomap_dio_complete() without inode_lock > > > 502756b38093 btrfs: remove btrfs_inode::dio_sem > > > e9adabb9712e btrfs: use shared lock for direct writes within EOF > > > c35237063340 btrfs: push inode locking and unlocking into buffered/direct write > > > a14b78ad06ab btrfs: introduce btrfs_inode_lock()/unlock() > > > b8d8e1fd570a btrfs: introduce btrfs_write_check() > > > > > > and maybe more. > > > > > > $ git diff b8d8e1fd570a^..ecfdc08b8cc6 | diffstat > > > btrfs_inode.h | 10 - > > > ctree.h | 8 + > > > file.c | 338 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------------- > > > inode.c | 96 +++++++--------- > > > transaction.h | 1 > > > 5 files changed, 213 insertions(+), 240 deletions(-) > > > > > > That seems too much for a backport, the fix Filipe implemented is > > > simpler and IMO qualifies as the exceptional stable-only patch. > > > > Why is that too much? For 7 patches that's a small overall diffstat. > > And you match identically what is upstream in Linus's tree. That means > > over time, backporting fixing is much easier, and understanding the code > > for everyone is simpler. > > The changes are not trivial and touch eg. inode locking and other > subsystems (iomap), so they're not self contained inside btrfs. And the > list of possibly related patches is not entirely known at this moment, > the above is an example that was obvious, but Filipe has expressed > doubts that it's complete and I agree. > > Backporting them to 5.10.x would need same amount of testing and > validation that the 5.11 version got during the whole development cycle. > > > It's almost always better to track what is in Linus's tree than to do > > one-off patches as 95% of the time we do one-off patches they are buggy > > and cause problems as no one else is running them. > > While I understand that concern in general, in this case it's trading > changes by lots of code with a targeted fix with a reproducer, basically > fixing the buggy error handling path. > > > So how about sending the above backported series instead please. > > Considering the risk I don't want to do that. Ok, thanks, now queued up. greg k-h
