Hi Hans, On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 12:05:31AM +0200, Hans van Kranenburg wrote: > Hi, > > On 10/02/2018 10:08 PM, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > > Hi Michael, > > > > On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 11:37:45AM +0100, Michael Firth wrote: > >> > >> BTRFS may not be a filesystem that everyone uses, but I feel if it is in > >> the Debian kernel then bugs that can cause data loss should be fixed if > >> a patch already exists. > > > > In principle I agree; although I think it would be safer to coordinate > > with Greg Kroah-Harman about getting them applied upstream before > > importing them into Debian, since (afaik) > > > we don't have any btrfs > > specialists working on our kernel...people who would know if importing > > one of these patches will introduce unintended side-effects or a > > rabbit hole of patches. > > This is not a debian specific issue. The upstream btrfs team does not > have enough work capacity to do this, and mainly focuses on going > forward instead of looking back. And I don't think there's really > someone who would know the things mentioned above except for the authors > of the patches themselves (who tag them for stable if it's data > corruption and if they know it will work (tm)), or the btrfs maintainer > who knows which ones to put together in which order to prepare the next > kernel release. Agreed! Also, acknowledging when issues aren't Debian-specific and then working with upstream so everyone can benefit is one reason we have a great reputation for giving back to the larger community :-) > > > Maybe it would be safer to look at the delta > > between btrfs in 4.9.x and 4.14.x and ask for backported fixes from > > 4.14.x to 4.9.x? (eg: more than six months of testing in 4.14.x, like > > the -o ssd bug that is still present in 4.9.x) > > For the -o ssd issue, in hindsight, it was a mistake to not get that > into 4.9 earlier. > > Every user who wants to try out btrfs on his/her computer with Stretch > and uses it as the root filesystem on a disk which is not too large is > still affected by this sub-optimal behaviour. > > So I guess that's a TODO for me, to still get it done now. It's 951e7966 > and 583b723151 with a few small changes to make it apply. At least it > has had enough testing, and the amount of users with out-of-space > filesystems has decreased notably in the last year in #btrfs IRC. :) Thank you! I updated our wiki page within a week of learning about the patch, but in the future would you prefer if I file a bug? I don't imagine it will be more than two bugs a year ;-) Btw, would you please forward the bug to me for the 951e7966 and 583b723151 backport? Sincerely, Nicholas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature