On Wed, Feb 27 2019 at 12:38pm -0500, Sasha Levin sashal@kernel.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 10:49:09PM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14 2019 at 9:08pm -0500, Sasha Levin sashal@kernel.org wrote:
From: Mike Snitzer snitzer@redhat.com
[ Upstream commit 57c36519e4b949f89381053f7283f5d605595b42 ]
DM's clone_bio() now benefits from using bio_trim() by fixing the fact that clone_bio() wasn't clearing BIO_SEG_VALID like bio_trim() does; which triggers blk_recount_segments() via bio_phys_segments().
Reviewed-by: Ming Lei ming.lei@redhat.com Signed-off-by: Mike Snitzer snitzer@redhat.com Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin sashal@kernel.org
Please no, I later effectively reverted this change with commit fa8db4948f522 ("dm: don't use bio_trim() afterall")
I've dropped it, thank you.
(As and aside, I really shouldn't have to defend against stable@ bots picking up a commit, like 57c36519e4b949f, that wasn't marked for stable@.)
Is it the case that this commit isn't appropriate for stable for some reason, or was it just buggy?
Commit 57c36519e4b9 exposed a bug elsewhere, as fixed by a truly "stable" fix: ff0c129d3b5ec ("dm crypt: don't overallocate the integrity tag space")
So the end result is commit 57c36519e4b9 is just bad to bring to a "stable" kernel. It unlocks another bug for no meaningful benefit.
Mike