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;
Date:   Sat, 1 Dec 2018 08:50:05 +1100
From:   Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To:     Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, stable@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>,
        "Darrick J . Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 4.14 25/35] iomap: sub-block dio needs to zeroout
 beyond EOF
Message-ID: <20181130215005.GP19305@dastard>
References: <20181129060110.159878-1-sashal@kernel.org>
 <20181129060110.159878-25-sashal@kernel.org>
 <20181129121458.GK19305@dastard>
 <20181129124756.GA25945@kroah.com>
 <20181129224019.GM19305@dastard>
 <20181130082203.GA26830@kroah.com>
 <20181130101441.GA213156@sasha-vm>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181130101441.GA213156@sasha-vm>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 05:14:41AM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 09:22:03AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> >On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 09:40:19AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >>I stopped my tests at 5 billion ops yesterday (i.e. 20 billion ops
> >>aggregate) to focus on testing the copy_file_range() changes, but
> >>Darrick's tests are still ongoing and have passed 40 billion ops in
> >>aggregate over the past few days.
> >>
> >>The reason we are running these so long is that we've seen fsx data
> >>corruption failures after 12+ hours of runtime and hundreds of
> >>millions of ops. Hence the testing for backported fixes will need to
> >>replicate these test runs across multiple configurations for
> >>multiple days before we have any confidence that we've actually
> >>fixed the data corruptions and not introduced any new ones.
> >>
> >>If you pull only a small subset of the fixes, the fsx will still
> >>fail and we have no real way of actually verifying that there have
> >>been no regression introduced by the backport.  IOWs, there's a
> >>/massive/ amount of QA needed for ensuring that these backports work
> >>correctly.
> >>
> >>Right now the XFS developers don't have the time or resources
> >>available to validate stable backports are correct and regression
> >>fre because we are focussed on ensuring the upstream fixes we've
> >>already made (and are still writing) are solid and reliable.
> >
> >Ok, that's fine, so users of XFS should wait until the 4.20 release
> >before relying on it?  :)
> 
> It's getting to the point that with the amount of known issues with XFS
> on LTS kernels it makes sense to mark it as CONFIG_BROKEN.

Really? Where are the bug reports?

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com