Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Date:   Wed, 23 Feb 2022 18:20:58 +0100
From:   David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>
To:     Su Yue <l@damenly.su>
Cc:     Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>, Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org,
        David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>, clm@fb.com,
        josef@toxicpanda.com, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.10 16/27] btrfs: tree-checker: check item_size
 for dev_item
Message-ID: <20220223172058.GR12643@twin.jikos.cz>
Reply-To: dsterba@suse.cz
Mail-Followup-To: dsterba@suse.cz, Su Yue <l@damenly.su>,
        Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>, Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org,
        David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>, clm@fb.com, josef@toxicpanda.com,
        linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
References: <20220209184103.47635-1-sashal@kernel.org>
 <20220209184103.47635-16-sashal@kernel.org>
 <Yg92voqmS9jz/rI+@kroah.com>
 <1r00qtxj.fsf@damenly.su>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1r00qtxj.fsf@damenly.su>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1-rc1 (2014-03-12)
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 07:25:20PM +0800, Su Yue wrote:
> On Fri 18 Feb 2022 at 11:36, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 01:40:52PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
>  \
>       |                                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~^
> fs/btrfs/ctree.h:1833:1: note: in expansion of macro 
> \342\200\230BTRFS_SETGET_FUNCS\342\200\231
>  1833 | BTRFS_SETGET_FUNCS(item_size, struct btrfs_item, size, 
>  32);
>       | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ========================================================================
> 
> The upstream patchset[1] merged in 5.17-rc1, changed second 
> parameter
> of btrfs_item_size() from btrfs_item * to int directly.
> So yes, the backport is wrong.
> 
> I'm not familiar with stable backport progress. Should I file a 
> patch
> using btrfs_item *? Or just drop it?
> 
> The patch is related to  0c982944af27d131d3b74242f3528169f66950ad 
> but
> I wonder why the 0c98294 is not selected automatically.

We don't rely on the automatic selection, I evaluate all patches for
stable inclusion and add the CC: tag, this works well. Not all patches
need to go to stable, but AUTOSEL sometimes picks patches that could be
there and if it's not entirely wrong I don't object.