[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Discussion: what would not blocking on btrfs look like?



On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 8:00 PM Chris Murphy <lists colorremedies com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:17 PM Adam Williamson
> <adamwill fedoraproject org> wrote:
>
> > So, there was recently a Thing where btrfs installs were broken, and
> > this got accepted as a release blocker:
> >
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733388
>
> Summary: This bug was introduced and discovered in linux-next, it
> started to affect Fedora 5.3.0-rc0 kernels in openqa tests, patch
> appeared during rc1, and the patch was merged into 5.3.0-rc2. The bug
> resulted in a somewhat transient deadlock which caused installs to
> hang, but no corruption. The fix, 2 files changed, 12 insertions, 8
> deletions (1/2 the insertions are comments).
>
> How remarkable or interesting is this bug? And in particular, exactly
> how much faster should it have been fixed in order to avoid worrying
> about it being a blocker bug?
>
> 7/25 14:27 utc bug patch was submitted to linux-btrfs@
> 7/25 22:33 utc bug was first reported in Fedora bugzilla
> 7/26 19:20 utc I confirmed upstream's patch related to this bug with
> upstream and updated the Fedora bug
> 7/26 22:50 utc I confirmed it was merged into rc2, and updated the Fedora bug
>
> So in the context of status quo, where Btrfs is presented as an option
> in the installer and if there are bugs they Beta blocking, how could
> or should this have been fixed sooner? What about the handling should
> have been different?
>
> I note here that ext2 and ext3 are offered as file systems in
> Custom/Advanced partitioning and in this sense have parity with Btrfs.
> If this same bug occurred in ext2 or ext3 would or should that cause
> discussion to drop them from the installer, even if the bug were fixed
> within 24 hours of discovery and patch? What about vfat? That's
> literally the only truly required filesystem that must work, for the
> most commonly supported hardware so it can't be dropped, we'd just be
> stuck until it got fixed. That work would have to be done upstream,
> yes?

>From my standpoint, ext4 and xfs are the primary supported root
filesystems. I don't think that anything else should be release
blocking. As for whether the installer exposes other options, it is
really more of an installer and QA question. We are certainly not even
discussing turning them off in the kernel at this point, and I don't
think that we should.

> --
> Chris Murphy
> _______________________________________________
> kernel mailing list -- kernel lists fedoraproject org
> To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-leave lists fedoraproject org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel lists fedoraproject org


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]