On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 06:59:33PM +0200, Andre Noll wrote:
On Wed, May 01, 08:36, Darrick J. Wong wrote
You could send this patch to the stable list, but my guess is that they'd prefer a straight backport of all three commits...
Hm, cherry-picking the first commit onto 4.9,171 already gives four conflicting files. The conflicts are trivial to resolve (git cherry-pick -xX theirs 21ec54168b36 does it), but that doesn't compile because xfs_btree_query_all() is missing. So e9a2599a249ed (xfs: create a function to query all records in a btree) is needed as well. But then, applying 86210fbebae (xfs: move various type verifiers to common file) on top of that gives non-trivial conflicts.
Ah, I suspected that might happen. Backports are hard. :(
I suppose one saving grace of the patch you sent is that it'll likely break the build if anyone ever /does/ attempt a backport of those first two commits. Perhaps that is the most practical way forward.
So, for automatic backporting we would need to cherry-pick even more, and each backported commit should be tested of course. Given this, do you still think Greg prefers a rather large set of straight backports over the simple commit that just pulls in the missing function?
I think you'd have to ask him that, if you decide not to send yesterday's patch.
Let's try. I've added a sentence to the commit message which explains why a straight backport is not practical, and how to proceed if anyone wants to backport the earlier commits.
Greg: Under the given circumstances, would you be willing to accept the patch below for 4.9?
If the xfs maintainers say this is ok, it is fine with me.
thanks,
greg k-h