Received: by 10.213.65.68 with SMTP id h4csp1010283imn; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 12:57:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4/hapwsa0DMzoTPvHpdxmNECBDpDnuESD7PKrZDmC++Wvle/svom0hDcvL6yjvgQ0uJUk4q X-Received: by 10.99.98.196 with SMTP id w187mr446347pgb.307.1522180649386; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 12:57:29 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1522180649; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=hW4FQfKok2VDd5P+Q5S7bBWe8YXkfVH1LD+lsoRQY0JMB7W5MkPbSuwQfCYRMkc8nx Tv62tHiUZRaeeupbxcU4mb/0Q05jV1bVLEangr7jJ5LuflLBEion30sfaS+GAIXKrWwq wlVyOq0M0R2gcdrlXPekAV5zrk5x04UnJrQUES8q8BdMgEP1S7ozVbQZi3+GGr+QVYfI WyDlro96HoM801jYlqkFDyij2qZTks/VerjZ2b/bJkTde02J136oikcBiyOVbZmcQjqJ 7pOobLgVzn4QbJ7TLLrgJLVZXGRJWMnFm9qdMtwkIi+wHYHfc/NqRq3ZcQK/ijRx546K hR3w== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date:arc-authentication-results; bh=l10X6bEMetER7BAPIKEc4SaMNR4HVXBAge4AUuVZt58=; b=nCN9y10oRT+Z+epkx+kyaWEuB+ugFk4HmLDbj8fFZWQhUpcdWGGJyLNGLFa3f9ODvE Y7yYqy8VK+fdvwCzljL0MhlnkvTBUyDQAtS39RUMFPkgQqEHUivyUkQL3tOga+w1PTjw HkWQfKTDsvxbNi/fwstQTtv9feVBQgKYGlEbSVwz6+aIxCaP3kqVLf4hHvAKhLfuouG4 VT3GNKcay5wBqH6HCbZTtcqafeSkgwB2oRD+vTsK1Pqlb1BQYJWaYmqmpQ4OMUD8tjqk ZpSLqO0uZpTmFFrzSkNGjPQXuYRom9YeYED9NwD9RvW/yyanKDXBv2/VZHewV3liTV+0 2i5A== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id f31-v6si1917799plb.212.2018.03.27.12.56.33; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 12:57:29 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751316AbeC0Tyk (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 27 Mar 2018 15:54:40 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:39663 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750914AbeC0Tyh (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Mar 2018 15:54:37 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay1.suse.de (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30D77B051; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 19:54:36 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 19:54:35 +0000 From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" To: Michal Hocko Cc: Sasha Levin , Dave Chinner , "Luis R. Rodriguez" , "Darrick J. Wong" , Christoph Hellwig , xfs , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List" , Sasha Levin , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Julia Lawall , Josh Triplett , Takashi Iwai , Joerg Roedel Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: always free inline data before resetting inode fork during ifree Message-ID: <20180327195435.GE9190@wotan.suse.de> References: <20171123060137.GL2135@magnolia> <20180323013037.GA9190@wotan.suse.de> <20180323034145.GH4818@magnolia> <20180323170813.GD30543@wotan.suse.de> <20180323172620.GK4818@magnolia> <20180323182302.GB9190@wotan.suse.de> <20180325223357.GJ18129@dastard> <20180327070637.GX5652@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180327070637.GX5652@dhcp22.suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 09:06:37AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > So by no means the MM backports were reviewed by me. And considering how hard > it is to get any review for MM patches in general I strongly suspect that > others didn't review either. > > In general I am quite skeptical about the automagic backports > selections, to be honest. MM patches should be reasonably good at > selecting stable backports and adding more patches on top just risks > regressions. BTW other than suggesting we needing *actual review* of the MM patches, are there known unit tests which could be run as well? Thinking long term. Luis