On Mon, 2023-10-30 at 17:04 +0800, ChenXiaoSong wrote: > [You don't often get email from chenxiaosongemail@xxxxxxxxxxx. Learn > why this is important at > https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ;] > > On 2023/10/30 16:58, Greg KH wrote: > > If you just revert that one patch, is the issue resolved? And what > > about other stable releases that have that change in it? > > > > If this does need to be reverted, please submit a patch that does > > so and > > we can review it that way. > > > > thanks, > > > > greg k-h > > > In my opinion, this patch is not for fixing a bug, but is part of a > refactoring patchset. The 'Fixes:' tag should not be added. > > A refactoring is by definition a change that does not affect code behaviour. It is obvious that this was never intended to be such a patch. The reason that the bug is occurring in 4.19.x, and not in the latest kernels, is because the former is missing another bugfix (one which actually is missing a "Fixes:" tag). Can you therefore please check if applying commit 22876f540bdf ("NFS: Don't call generic_error_remove_page() while holding locks") fixes the issue. Note that the latter patch is needed in any case in order to fix a read deadlock (as indicated on the label). Thanks, Trond -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
