[Top] [All Lists]

Re: request for stable inclusion

To: CAI Qian <caiqian@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: request for stable inclusion
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 09:11:00 +1100
Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>, Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>, Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>, stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1879117295.8593844.1362387154930.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <426368976.8591643.1362386550488.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxx> <1879117295.8593844.1362387154930.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 03:52:34AM -0500, CAI Qian wrote:
> This is to request to apply the below commit for the stable releases
> in order to fix a regression introduced by 055388a (xfs: dynamic
> speculative EOF preallocation) that caused fsync() took long time during
> the sparse file testing.
> For stable-3.4 and stable-3.8, it can be applied as it is. For stable-3.0,
> please see the below patch which fixed the context and used xfs_bmapi()
> instead of xfs_bmapi_read() which yet in the tree. Also tested on the
> stable-3.0 to confirmed the original fsync() slowness regression is now
> gone. Please review and ACK.

I've already said no to -stable in another discussion thread, and
that discussion has not yet played out. please do not try to preempt
any discussion by sending patches to @stable before it is even
decided if it is something we *need* to fix in 2 year old kernels.
Yes, you have input into the discussion, but please do not take it
upon yourself to determine what should be backported to -stable and
what shouldn't be - that is for the subsystem maintainers to decide.

FWIW, is your memory so short that you don't remember what happened
a couple of weeks ago with the last XFS bugfix backport you
requested directly to @stable and was accepted based on "it applies
and builds, so it's OK?" i.e. without proper review, discussion or

That's right - it caused a major functional regression and that
wasted a heap of time for quite a few people in sorting it out.

So right now this request gets a big, fat, loud NACK from me while
the aforementioned discussion takes place.


Dave Chinner

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>