Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Sat, 16 Apr 2022 21:55:54 +0200
From:   Max Kellermann <mk@cm4all.com>
To:     Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@leemhuis.info>
Cc:     Max Kellermann <mk@cm4all.com>, dhowells@redhat.com,
        linux-cachefs@redhat.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "regressions@lists.linux.dev" <regressions@lists.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: fscache corruption in Linux 5.17?
Message-ID: <YlsfSqysfKJqwDVz@rabbit.intern.cm-ag>
References: <YlWWbpW5Foynjllo@rabbit.intern.cm-ag>
 <c6b80014-846d-cd90-7e67-d72959ffabe1@leemhuis.info>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <c6b80014-846d-cd90-7e67-d72959ffabe1@leemhuis.info>
Precedence: bulk

On 2022/04/16 13:38, Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@leemhuis.info> wrote:
> Thx for the report. Maybe a bisection is what's needed here, but lets
> see what David says, maybe he has a idea already.

I wish I could do that, but it's very hard to reproduce; the first
reports came after a week or so.  That way, a bisect would take
months.  So yes, wait for David, because he might give a clue how to
trigger the problem more quickly to make a bisect practical.