Re: [Regression 6.1.y] From "cifs: Fix flushing, invalidation and file size with copy_file_range()"

From: Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org>
To: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
	Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com>,
	Shyam Prasad N <nspmangalore@gmail.com>,
	Rohith Surabattula <rohiths.msft@gmail.com>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
	Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
	Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Jitindar Singh, Suraj" <surajjs@amazon.com>,
	"rohiths.msft@gmail.com" <rohiths.msft@gmail.com>,
	"gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	"stfrench@microsoft.com" <stfrench@microsoft.com>,
	"pc@manguebit.com" <pc@manguebit.com>,
	"jlayton@kernel.org" <jlayton@kernel.org>,
	"nspmangalore@gmail.com" <nspmangalore@gmail.com>,
	"willy@infradead.org" <willy@infradead.org>,
	"stable-commits@vger.kernel.org" <stable-commits@vger.kernel.org>,
	stable@vger.kernel.org, linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org,
	Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@lists.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [Regression 6.1.y] From "cifs: Fix flushing, invalidation and file size with copy_file_range()"
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 17:20:27 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZZ7Dy69ZJCEyKhhS@eldamar.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <13a70cc5-78fc-49a4-8d78-41e5479e3023@leemhuis.info>

Hi

Sorry if this is to prematurely to ask already again.

On Sat, Jan 06, 2024 at 01:02:16PM +0100, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
> On 06.01.24 12:34, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 06, 2024 at 11:40:58AM +0100, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
> >>
> >> Does this problem also happen in mainline, e.g. with 6.7-rc8?
> > 
> > Thanks a lot for replying back. So far I can tell, the regression is
> > in 6.1.y only 
> 
> Ahh, good to know, thx!
> 
> > For this reason I added to regzbot only "regzbot ^introduced
> > 18b02e4343e8f5be6a2f44c7ad9899b385a92730" which is the commit in
> > v6.1.68.
> 
> Which was the totally right thing to do, thx. Guess I sooner or later
> will add something like "#regzbot tag notinmainline" to avoid the
> ambiguity we just cleared up, but maybe that's overkill.

Do we have already a picture on the best move forward? Should the
patch and the what depends on it be reverted or was someone already
able to isolate where the problem comes from specifically for the
6.1.y series? 

Regards,
Salvatore