Hi On Tue, Nov 07, 2023 at 08:33:58PM +0100, Diederik de Haas wrote: > Control: found -1 6.1~rc3-1~exp1 > Control: found -1 6.1.55-1 > > On Saturday, 4 November 2023 20:35:43 CET Jose M Calhariz wrote: > > > Ok. Please test (when you have time) 6.1.55-1. > > > > Fail : Linux afs31 6.1.0-0-amd64 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Debian > > 6.1~rc3-1~exp1 (2022-11-02) x86_64 GNU/Linux > > > > Fail : Linux afs31 6.1.0-13-amd64 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Debian 6.1.55-1 > > (2023-09-29) x86_64 GNU/Linux > > > > Done. I tested even the first 6.1 on Debian. Both of them failed. > > Thanks, updated metadata accordingly. > So now we know it's indeed present in the whole 6.1 series. > > > > Unfortunately there isn't a 6.2 kernel uploaded to the Debian archive and > > > thus not available on snapshot.d.o, but testing 6.3.1-1~exp1 should be > > > useful. > > Please test with with 6.3.1-1~exp1 to make sure it was fixed then (too). > > Unfortunately, the commit list between 6.1 and 6.3.1 is quite large: > me@pc:~/dev/kernel.org/linux$ git log --oneline v6.1..v6.3.1 -- fs/xfs | wc -l > 159 > > If that list was small, I could've suggested to try 'backporting' a couple of > patches, but that avenue seems rather pointless in this case. > > It's probably also useful to verify whether it's also present in the whole > 5.10 series, which should give (even) more data points. > > I think the next step should be to 'forward' this bug report to the upstream > mailing list at linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org I do not follow closely linux-xfs mailing list, but I think other people already reported problems with 6.1 and are trying to do the effort of delimiting the patch and test a backport to 6.1. Kind regards Jose M Calhariz -- -- Egoista, s. m. Um sujeito mais interessado em si próprio que em mim. -- Ambrose Bierce
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature