Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 12 May 2023 21:19:11 +0900
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Marcus Hoffmann <marcus.hoffmann@othermo.de>
Cc:     tytso@mit.edu, famzah@icdsoft.com, jack@suse.cz,
        linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: kernel BUG at fs/ext4/inode.c:1914 - page_buffers()
Message-ID: <2023051249-finalize-sneak-2864@gregkh>
References: <20230315185711.GB3024297@mit.edu>
 <578c0eb1-5271-b5fe-afa2-e2c1107b8968@othermo.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <578c0eb1-5271-b5fe-afa2-e2c1107b8968@othermo.de>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 11:21:27AM +0200, Marcus Hoffmann wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> > On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 18:57, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > 
> > Yeah, sorry, I didn't see it since it was in an attachment as opposed
> > to with an explicit [PATCH] subject line.
> > 
> > And at this point, the data=journal writeback patches have landed in
> > the ext4/dev tree, and while we could try to see if we could land this
> > before the next merge window, I'm worried about merge or semantic
> > conflicts of having both patches in a tree at one time.
> > 
> > I guess we could send it to Linus, let it get backported into stable,
> > and then revert it during the merge window, ahead of applying the
> > data=journal cleanup patch series.  But that seems a bit ugly.  Or we
> > could ask for an exception from the stable kernel folks, after I do a
> > full set of xfstests runs on it.  (Of course, I don't think anyone has
> > been able to create a reliable reproducer, so all we can do is to test
> > for regression failures.)
> > 
> > Jan, Greg, what do you think?
> 
> We've noticed this appearing for us as well now (on 5.15 with
> data=journaled) and I wanted to ask what the status here is. Did any fix
> here make it into a stable kernel yet? If not, I suppose I can still
> apply the patch posted above as a quick-fix until this (or another
> solution) makes it into the stable tree?

Any reason you can't just move to 6.1.y instead?  What prevents that?

thanks,

greg k-h