[dm-devel] Linux 5.10

[Jens Axboe]

On 12/14/20 9:26 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14 2020 at 11:02am -0500,
> Mike Snitzer <snitzer at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Dec 14 2020 at 12:52am -0500,
>> Greg KH <gregkh at linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 12:31:47AM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 03:03:29PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>>>  > Ok, here it is - 5.10 is tagged and pushed out.
>>>>  > 
>>>>  > I pretty much always wish that the last week was even calmer than it
>>>>  > was, and that's true here too. There's a fair amount of fixes in here,
>>>>  > including a few last-minute reverts for things that didn't get fixed,
>>>>  > but nothing makes me go "we need another week".
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>  > Mike Snitzer (1):
>>>>  >       md: change mddev 'chunk_sectors' from int to unsigned
>>>>
>>>> Seems to be broken.  This breaks mounting my raid6 partition:
>>>>
>>>> [   87.290698] attempt to access beyond end of device
>>>>                md0: rw=4096, want=13996467328, limit=6261202944
>>>> [   87.293371] attempt to access beyond end of device
>>>>                md0: rw=4096, want=13998564480, limit=6261202944
>>>> [   87.296045] BTRFS warning (device md0): couldn't read tree root
>>>> [   87.300056] BTRFS error (device md0): open_ctree failed
>>>>
>>>> Reverting it goes back to the -rc7 behaviour where it mounts fine.
>>>
>>> If the developer/maintainer(s) agree, I can revert this and push out a
>>> 5.10.1, just let me know.
>>
>> Yes, these should be reverted from 5.10 via 5.10.1:
>>
>> e0910c8e4f87 dm raid: fix discard limits for raid1 and raid10
>> f075cfb1dc59 md: change mddev 'chunk_sectors' from int to unsigned
> 
> Sorry, f075cfb1dc59 was my local commit id, the corresponding upstream
> commit as staged by Jens is:
> 
> 6ffeb1c3f82 md: change mddev 'chunk_sectors' from int to unsigned
> 
> So please revert:
> 6ffeb1c3f822 md: change mddev 'chunk_sectors' from int to unsigned
> and then revert:
> e0910c8e4f87 dm raid: fix discard limits for raid1 and raid10

Working with Song on understanding the failure case here. raid6 was
tested prior to this being shipped. We'll be back with more soon...

-- 
Jens Axboe