Re: [PATCH 6.1 000/481] 6.1.167-rc1 review

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 10:59:31PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 03:36:21PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > I have a bisect for an ext4 issue in v6.1 which comes out at:
> > 
> > # first bad commit: [29897d75d6491ffe23cdc9d96caba9282a20dfc3] ext4: convert bd_bitmap_page to bd_bitmap_folio
> > 
> > For an oops which looks very similar (but on arm64):
> 
> I can confirm this bisection; I was testing on x86_64, and using
> "kvm-xfstests -c ext4/4k generic/001" on a failure, it would crash
> before running the first test (in my test runner infrastructure when
> running syncfs on the results directory --- go figure).
> 
> Unfortunately, you can't just revert this commit because of merge
> conflicts.  In order to get a clean revert, you have to revert (or
> drop) three commits:
> 
> % git log -3
> commit b12a69d9770b58fb02d3b4f72abe5acd28aa7e76 (HEAD)
> Author: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx>
> Date:   Tue Mar 24 23:46:15 2026 -0400
> 
>     Revert "ext4: convert bd_bitmap_page to bd_bitmap_folio"
> 
>     This reverts commit 29897d75d6491ffe23cdc9d96caba9282a20dfc3.
> 
> commit 9c95c376c79f47fe9ee8ce562249d3630a50ab12
> Author: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx>
> Date:   Tue Mar 24 23:44:23 2026 -0400
> 
>     Revert "ext4: convert bd_buddy_page to bd_buddy_folio"
> 
>     This reverts commit fe80bba8f76f9f0995cdc64fc89b65173e1ae828.
> 
> commit 98f5de80114f6194af4d9fae572b73440efa67c2
> Author: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx>
> Date:   Tue Mar 24 23:43:40 2026 -0400
> 
>     Revert "ext4: fix e4b bitmap inconsistency reports"
> 
>     This reverts commit cb45b6209aa53979b054bd026d938107d5a3031b.
> 
> I haven't had time to investigate this more closely, but I'm assuming
> the automated stable picker was trying to backport cb45b6209aa5
> ("ext4: fix e4b bitmap inconsistency reports"), and determined that
> the fe80bba8f76f ("ext4: convert bd_buddy_page to bd_buddy_folio") and
> 29897d75d649 ("ext4: convert bd_bitmap_page to bd_bitmap_folio") were
> prerequisite commits --- and while 29897d75d649 cherry picked
> correctly, either the git scrwed up the cherry pick, or there was some
> additional prerequisite commit needed, but wasn't caught by the "it
> patches cleanly, ship it!" algorithm.
> 
> I don't have time to investigate further, but Greg, if you could drop
> these three patches, that should address this issue.

All now dropped, thanks!

greg k-h