Re: [Regression 6.1.y] From "cifs: Fix flushing, invalidation and file size with copy_file_range()" - Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)

From: "Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)" <regressions@leemhuis.info>
To: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>
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>,
	"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>,
	"gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org>
Subject: Re: [Regression 6.1.y] From "cifs: Fix flushing, invalidation and file size with copy_file_range()"
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 09:12:06 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <9144bdc5-36ea-498c-8ff6-1be9fc2d3d2a@leemhuis.info> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2024011115-neatly-trout-5532@gregkh>

On 11.01.24 12:03, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 05:20:27PM +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
>> 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?

Steve what's you opinion on reverting this? From
https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAH2r5mu7e5-ORZbUyutteWVx2Nk6FPHfx7mMGCWSCEBAO6tdqg@mail.gmail.com/
it looks like you added the stable tag to the culprit on purpose.

FWIW, this thread stared there (just in case you missed earlier msgs):
https://lore.kernel.org/all/a76b370f93cb928c049b94e1fde0d2da506dfcb2.camel@amazon.com/

Ciao, Thorsten