From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932160AbcHVFSh (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Aug 2016 01:18:37 -0400 Received: from wtarreau.pck.nerim.net ([62.212.114.60]:57390 "EHLO 1wt.eu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752758AbcHVFSg (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Aug 2016 01:18:36 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 07:18:26 +0200 From: Willy Tarreau To: Dave Chinner Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, Dave Chinner , Greg Kroah-Hartman Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.10 090/180] xfs: xfs_iflush_cluster fails to abort on error Message-ID: <20160822051826.GA4522@1wt.eu> References: <1471793510-13022-1-git-send-email-w@1wt.eu> <1471793510-13022-91-git-send-email-w@1wt.eu> <20160822042108.GH22388@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160822042108.GH22388@dastard> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Dave, On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 02:21:08PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > - if (error || !bp) { > > + if (error == -EAGAIN) { > > Wrong. Errors changed sign in XFS in 3.17. Ah my bad, sorry for this. > /rant > > So, after just having to point this out (again!) for a different > stable kernel patchset review, and this specific problem causing > user-reported stable kernel regression and filesystem corruption > *months ago*. That resulted in discussion and new stable commits to > fix the problem. So now I'm left to wonder about the process of > stable kernels. Yep I remember this discussion now, I'm sorry. > AFAICT, stable kernel maintainers are not watching what happens with > other stable kernels, nor are they talking to other stable kernel > maintainers. I should not have to tell every single stable kernel > maintainer that a specific patch needs to be changed after it's > already been reported broken, triaged and fixed in other stable > kernels. You've all got a record that the patch needs to be included > in a stable kernel, but nobody is seems to notice when it comes to > fixing problems with a stable patch even when that all happens on > stable@vger.kernel.org. > > Seriously, guys, pick up your act a bit and start talking between > yourselvesi and tracking regressions and fixes so the burden of > catching known reported and fixed problems with backports doesn't > rely on the upstream developers noticing the problem when hundreds > of patches for random stable kernels go past on lkml every week... We definitely do exchange quite a bit and I pick patches from 3.14 for 3.10, but sometimes I can simply pick the original one for various reasons (eg: I if had queued its upstream ID earlier). That's also why the review process helps. I'm sincerely sorry that I failed on this one and that you had to deal with it again, I'm going to fix it now. Thanks, Willy