From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3DF5C282C2 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 18:18:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C702321019 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 18:18:12 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1548267492; bh=OHfXKqS/cd5PdeS0hlQomNAdJPyO2rGLTqijJHyb9X4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=bzgiGoE43L0C9WDOPfbJE6Ab4VrfAOODOPsjZHtJQdPKNjojhXhj56hf97LU3CYKM ELuzZi0ZEzHwsX+SDYJFqJTNI/k8dH4lEhostkVWsugOSi+DPXwhLYo1TJwYZkjTEX pg4jWU1WhdTiuEfL/Fh5E6wNfzBE+CY3hvrG5bWY= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726220AbfAWSSH (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jan 2019 13:18:07 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:57886 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725976AbfAWSSH (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jan 2019 13:18:07 -0500 Received: from localhost (c-73-47-72-35.hsd1.nh.comcast.net [73.47.72.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6478421019; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 18:18:06 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1548267486; bh=OHfXKqS/cd5PdeS0hlQomNAdJPyO2rGLTqijJHyb9X4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=oDEsVf0BiYCdgmuZcW2l3EKh8c1bHNzP0k1o7H9NzSoHl+/xDqIqkb0vDcOEMmrMg wvl+LKcgJlRCFRUY4zuw+hT8au1n+cSXN0iGZhCV5eqRP3EDP0cOYTHNRKmTdcQ67N IcDegIsyD5V4usq6TB02m/98vboSbaj1P8jPdNgs= Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 13:18:05 -0500 From: Sasha Levin To: Hans van Kranenburg Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "stable@vger.kernel.org" , David Sterba , "linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 4.20 072/117] btrfs: alloc_chunk: fix more DUP stripe size handling Message-ID: <20190123181805.GM202535@sasha-vm> References: <20190108192628.121270-1-sashal@kernel.org> <20190108192628.121270-72-sashal@kernel.org> <783ccf1f-65df-d388-079c-9449d4319c27@mendix.com> <20190123143732.GL202535@sasha-vm> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 03:54:00PM +0000, Hans van Kranenburg wrote: >On 1/23/19 3:37 PM, Sasha Levin wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 11:52:02PM +0000, Hans van Kranenburg wrote: >>> Hi Sasha, >>> >>> On 1/8/19 8:25 PM, Sasha Levin wrote: >>>> From: Hans van Kranenburg >>>> >>>> [ Upstream commit baf92114c7e6dd6124aa3d506e4bc4b694da3bc3 ] >>>> >>>> Commit 92e222df7b "btrfs: alloc_chunk: fix DUP stripe size handling" >>>> fixed calculating the stripe_size for a new DUP chunk. >>> >>> That one also ended up as: >>> >>> 4.14-stable >>> 0136bd7238b2cb8238426af4183ed0b02165c3f9 >>> >>> 4.9-stable >>> 8890bae03f4dba1c2292e5445682b556af4e8f1b >>> >>> 4.4-stable >>> 97c3e46ef53748278286fc09dcc30b138d6677c4 >>> >>> 3.16.57-rc1 >>> f68f46284a199f6837c1d5b94a6ae979a2cc463c >>> >>> While hitting the failure condition without adding "crafting" steps to >>> make it exactly match the scenario is unlikely, it might be good if we >>> just go all the way back with this regression fix? >> >> What do you mean with "all the way back"? > >Oh, apologies for not using unambigious phrasing. > >I mean, it seems the autoselection only found 92e222df7b in places where >it's actually called 92e222df7b, and not where it was cherry-picked. > >So, for my own understanding: If I have to do something like this ever >again, then should I have added it like this inside baf92114c? > >Fixes: 92e222df7b ("btrfs: alloc_chunk: fix DUP stripe size handling") >Fixes: 0136bd7238 ("btrfs: alloc_chunk: fix DUP stripe size handling") >Fixes: 8890bae03f ("btrfs: alloc_chunk: fix DUP stripe size handling") >Fixes: 97c3e46ef5 ("btrfs: alloc_chunk: fix DUP stripe size handling") >Fixes: f68f46284a ("btrfs: alloc_chunk: fix DUP stripe size handling") > >Thanks for your patience, :) Ah, the scripts have enough "brains" to deal with these on their own, so no need to annotate that much. This patch wasn't applied to older trees because it didn't cherry-pick cleanly on top of them. Looking at it now, it seems to depend on 793ff2c88c6 ("btrfs: volumes: Cleanup stripe size calculation") which can possibly be picked up if it makes sense. -- Thanks, Sasha