All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>,
	stable@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: XFS hole punch races
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 07:16:54 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160605051654.GA20713@1wt.eu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160605021654.GX26977@dastard>

Dave,

On Sun, Jun 05, 2016 at 12:16:54PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 05, 2016 at 02:19:32AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Sun, 2016-06-05 at 09:28 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > You do realise that this sort of backport effectively makes the
> > > stable kernels unsupportable by the upstream XFS developers? You're
> > > taking random changes from the upstream kernel until the kernel
> > > compiles, and then mostly hoping that it works.
> > 
> > I'm applying slightly more intelligence than that, but of course I'm
> > not an XFS developer.
> 
> Sorry, Ben, I didn't mean to imply you hadn't done your due diligence
> properly. It's more a case of lots of things around these patches
> also changed, and from that perspective the changes are effective a
> random selection of changes spread across several years of
> development.
> 
> It's subtle things, like changes to how IO completion is processed
> (especially for AIO), etc that the backported code might depend on
> for correct behaviour but aren't in the older kernels. These sorts
> of subtle problems are typically only discovered by users with
> uncommon applications and/or load....

Does this mean that as a rule of thumb we'd rather avoid backporting
XFS fixes unless they seem really obvious (or at all) ?

Thanks,
Willy

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	stable@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: XFS hole punch races
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 07:16:54 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160605051654.GA20713@1wt.eu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160605021654.GX26977@dastard>

Dave,

On Sun, Jun 05, 2016 at 12:16:54PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 05, 2016 at 02:19:32AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Sun, 2016-06-05 at 09:28 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > You do realise that this sort of backport effectively makes the
> > > stable kernels unsupportable by the upstream XFS developers? You're
> > > taking random changes from the upstream kernel until the kernel
> > > compiles, and then mostly hoping that it works.
> > 
> > I'm applying slightly more intelligence than that, but of course I'm
> > not an XFS developer.
> 
> Sorry, Ben, I didn't mean to imply you hadn't done your due diligence
> properly. It's more a case of lots of things around these patches
> also changed, and from that perspective the changes are effective a
> random selection of changes spread across several years of
> development.
> 
> It's subtle things, like changes to how IO completion is processed
> (especially for AIO), etc that the backported code might depend on
> for correct behaviour but aren't in the older kernels. These sorts
> of subtle problems are typically only discovered by users with
> uncommon applications and/or load....

Does this mean that as a rule of thumb we'd rather avoid backporting
XFS fixes unless they seem really obvious (or at all) ?

Thanks,
Willy


  reply	other threads:[~2016-06-05  5:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-03-22 15:57 XFS hole punch races Jan Kara
2016-03-22 15:57 ` Jan Kara
2016-05-02 23:44 ` Greg KH
2016-05-02 23:44   ` Greg KH
2016-05-15 22:23 ` Ben Hutchings
2016-05-15 22:23   ` Ben Hutchings
2016-06-04 17:11 ` Ben Hutchings
2016-06-04 17:11   ` Ben Hutchings
2016-06-04 23:28   ` Dave Chinner
2016-06-04 23:28     ` Dave Chinner
2016-06-05  1:19     ` Ben Hutchings
2016-06-05  1:19       ` Ben Hutchings
2016-06-05  2:16       ` Dave Chinner
2016-06-05  2:16         ` Dave Chinner
2016-06-05  5:16         ` Willy Tarreau [this message]
2016-06-05  5:16           ` Willy Tarreau

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20160605051654.GA20713@1wt.eu \
    --to=w@1wt.eu \
    --cc=ben@decadent.org.uk \
    --cc=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.