On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 9:18 PM Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 02:59:44PM +0200, Mahmoud Adam wrote: > > Hi, > > > > These patches fix and reported by xfstests tests xfs/179 xfs/270 > > xfs/557 xfs/606, the patchset were tested to confirm they fix those > > tests. all are clean picks. > > Hi! Thanks for the backports! > > Normally I'd pass these on to the 6.1 XFS maintainer, but I'm not sure > who's actually taking care of that at the moment. To find out, I've > cc'd all the people who have either sent 6.1 backports or made noises > about doing so. Leah has claimed that she will take over 6.1.y ;) Leah, do you have any staged backports for 6.1.y already? Can easily fire up a test run of these backports? https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20240403125949.33676-1-mngyadam@xxxxxxxxxx/ It looks like most of the backports are from 2023 (v6.1..v6.6) except for patch 4/6 which has been backported to 6.6.y already. > > To the group: Who's the appropriate person to handle these? > > Mahmoud: If the answer to the above is "???" or silence, would you be > willing to take on stable testing and maintenance? > > Also FYI the normal practice (I think) is to cc linux-xfs, pick up some > acks, and then resend with the acks and cc'd to stable. > Mahmoud, I assume that you are running xfstests on LTS kernels regularly? In that case, you should have an established baseline for failing/passing tests on 6.1.y. Did you run these backports against all tests to verify no regressions? If you did - then please include this information (also which xfs configurations were tested) in the posting of backport candidates to xfs list. That is effectively the only thing that is required for doing reliable LTS backport work. Thanks, Amir.
