[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <578c0eb1-5271-b5fe-afa2-e2c1107b8968@othermo.de>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 11:21:27 +0200
From: Marcus Hoffmann <marcus.hoffmann@...ermo.de>
To: tytso@....edu
Cc: famzah@...soft.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, jack@...e.cz,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: kernel BUG at fs/ext4/inode.c:1914 - page_buffers()
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?
Best,
Marcus
________________________________
othermo GmbH | Sitz der Gesellschaft: Alzenau | Amtsgericht Aschaffenburg: HRB 14783 | USt-IdNr.: DE319977978 | Geschäftsführung: Dr. Dennis Metz.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists