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

From: "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org>
Cc: 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>,
	"Jitindar Singh, Suraj" <surajjs@amazon.com>,
	"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.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: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 12:03:45 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2024011115-neatly-trout-5532@gregkh> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZZ7Dy69ZJCEyKhhS@eldamar.lan>

On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 05:20:27PM +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> 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? 

I guess I can just revert the single commit here?  Can someone send me
the revert that I need to do so as I get it right?

thanks,

greg k-h