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:
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?
-- Chris Murphy
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:
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
On 8/23/19 9:00 PM, Chris Murphy 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:
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?
That's a fair question. This bug actually represents how this _should_ work. The concern is that in the past we haven't seen a lot engagement in the past. Maybe today that has changed as demonstrated by this thread. I'm still concerned about having this be a blocker vs. just keeping it as an option, simply because a blocker stops the entire release and it can be a last minute scramble to get things fixed. This was the ideal case for a blocker bugs and I'm skeptical about all bugs going this well. If we had a few more people who were willing to be on the btrfs alias and do the work for blocker bugs it would be a much stronger case.
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?
I don't think that's really a fair comparison. Just because options are presented doesn't mean all of them are equal. ext2/ext3 and vfat have been in development for much longer than btrfs and length of development is something that's particularly important for file system stability from talking with file system developers. It's not impossible for there to be bugs in ext4 for example (we've certainly seen them before) but btrfs is only now gaining overall stability and we're still more likely to see bugs, especially with custom setups where people are likely to find edge cases.
Thanks, Laura
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 11:16 AM Laura Abbott labbott@redhat.com wrote:
On 8/23/19 9:00 PM, Chris Murphy 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:
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?
That's a fair question. This bug actually represents how this _should_ work. The concern is that in the past we haven't seen a lot engagement in the past. Maybe today that has changed as demonstrated by this thread. I'm still concerned about having this be a blocker vs. just keeping it as an option, simply because a blocker stops the entire release and it can be a last minute scramble to get things fixed. This was the ideal case for a blocker bugs and I'm skeptical about all bugs going this well. If we had a few more people who were willing to be on the btrfs alias and do the work for blocker bugs it would be a much stronger case.
Out of curiosity, how many such issues have we had in the past 2 years? I personally can't recall any monumental occasions where people were scrambling over *Btrfs* in Fedora. If anything, we continue to inherit the work that SUSE and Facebook are doing upstream as part of us continually updating our kernels, which I'm grateful for.
And in the instances where we've had such issues, has anyone reached out to btrfs folks in Fedora? Chris and myself are the current ones, but there have been others in the past. Both of us are subscribed to the linux-btrfs mailing list, and Chris has a decent rapport with most of the btrfs developers.
What more do you want? Actual btrfs developers in Fedora? We don't have any for the majority of filesystems Fedora supports, only XFS. Is there some kind of problem with communicating with the upstream kernel developers about Fedora bugs that I'm not aware of?
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?
I don't think that's really a fair comparison. Just because options are presented doesn't mean all of them are equal. ext2/ext3 and vfat have been in development for much longer than btrfs and length of development is something that's particularly important for file system stability from talking with file system developers. It's not impossible for there to be bugs in ext4 for example (we've certainly seen them before) but btrfs is only now gaining overall stability and we're still more likely to see bugs, especially with custom setups where people are likely to find edge cases.
Nope. We can totally use this because LVM has not existed as long (we use LVM + filesystem by default, not plain partitions), and we still encounter quirks with things like thinp LVM combined with these filesystems. OverlayFS is mostly hot garbage (kernel people know it, container people know it, filesystem people know it, etc.), and yet we continue to try to use it in more places. Stratis is in an odd state of limbo now, since its main developer and advocate left Red Hat.
There are plenty of examples of Red Hat doing crazy/experimental things... I'd like to think Red Hat isn't supposed to be special here, but in this realm, it seems like it is...
On 8/26/19 11:39 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 11:16 AM Laura Abbott labbott@redhat.com wrote:
On 8/23/19 9:00 PM, Chris Murphy 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:
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?
That's a fair question. This bug actually represents how this _should_ work. The concern is that in the past we haven't seen a lot engagement in the past. Maybe today that has changed as demonstrated by this thread. I'm still concerned about having this be a blocker vs. just keeping it as an option, simply because a blocker stops the entire release and it can be a last minute scramble to get things fixed. This was the ideal case for a blocker bugs and I'm skeptical about all bugs going this well. If we had a few more people who were willing to be on the btrfs alias and do the work for blocker bugs it would be a much stronger case.
Out of curiosity, how many such issues have we had in the past 2 years? I personally can't recall any monumental occasions where people were scrambling over *Btrfs* in Fedora. If anything, we continue to inherit the work that SUSE and Facebook are doing upstream as part of us continually updating our kernels, which I'm grateful for.
And in the instances where we've had such issues, has anyone reached out to btrfs folks in Fedora? Chris and myself are the current ones, but there have been others in the past. Both of us are subscribed to the linux-btrfs mailing list, and Chris has a decent rapport with most of the btrfs developers.
What more do you want? Actual btrfs developers in Fedora? We don't have any for the majority of filesystems Fedora supports, only XFS. Is there some kind of problem with communicating with the upstream kernel developers about Fedora bugs that I'm not aware of?
Again, it's about length of overall development. ext and XFS have a much longer history in general which is something that's important for file system stability in general. It's also a bit of a catch-22 where the rate of btrfs use in Fedora is so low we don't actually see issues.
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?
I don't think that's really a fair comparison. Just because options are presented doesn't mean all of them are equal. ext2/ext3 and vfat have been in development for much longer than btrfs and length of development is something that's particularly important for file system stability from talking with file system developers. It's not impossible for there to be bugs in ext4 for example (we've certainly seen them before) but btrfs is only now gaining overall stability and we're still more likely to see bugs, especially with custom setups where people are likely to find edge cases.
Nope. We can totally use this because LVM has not existed as long (we use LVM + filesystem by default, not plain partitions), and we still encounter quirks with things like thinp LVM combined with these filesystems. OverlayFS is mostly hot garbage (kernel people know it, container people know it, filesystem people know it, etc.), and yet we continue to try to use it in more places. Stratis is in an odd state of limbo now, since its main developer and advocate left Red Hat.
There are plenty of examples of Red Hat doing crazy/experimental
things... I'd like to think Red Hat isn't supposed to be special here, but in this realm, it seems like it is...
btrfs still doesn't give me the warm fuzzies and I also think this is a bigger issue than other features simply because user data is at stake. We do need to consider that the failure case is not "I can't do X" but "my precious data which I have been trying to snapshot is now inaccessible" in a way that's even worse than say rpm database corruption. Even if it is in the advanced partitioning or not the default, we can still end up with people clicking in because they read an article about how btrfs was the hot new thing.
There are two parts to this here: killing off btrfs entirely and btrfs as release criteria. I think you are correct that there's enough community support to justify keeping btrfs around at least in the kernel (I can't speak for anaconda here)
As for btrfs as release criteria, I'd feel much more confident about that if we could have a file system developer on the btrfs alias. I'm glad to hear the btrfs upstream community has been receptive to bugs but it's still much easier to make things happen if we have contributors who are active in the Fedora community, especially if we want the advanced features that btrfs has (which is why people want it anyway). So, who would you suggest to work with us in Fedora?
Thanks, Laura
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 07:53:20AM -0400, Laura Abbott wrote:
On 8/26/19 11:39 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 11:16 AM Laura Abbott labbott@redhat.com wrote:
On 8/23/19 9:00 PM, Chris Murphy 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:
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?
That's a fair question. This bug actually represents how this _should_ work. The concern is that in the past we haven't seen a lot engagement in the past. Maybe today that has changed as demonstrated by this thread. I'm still concerned about having this be a blocker vs. just keeping it as an option, simply because a blocker stops the entire release and it can be a last minute scramble to get things fixed. This was the ideal case for a blocker bugs and I'm skeptical about all bugs going this well. If we had a few more people who were willing to be on the btrfs alias and do the work for blocker bugs it would be a much stronger case.
Out of curiosity, how many such issues have we had in the past 2 years? I personally can't recall any monumental occasions where people were scrambling over *Btrfs* in Fedora. If anything, we continue to inherit the work that SUSE and Facebook are doing upstream as part of us continually updating our kernels, which I'm grateful for.
And in the instances where we've had such issues, has anyone reached out to btrfs folks in Fedora? Chris and myself are the current ones, but there have been others in the past. Both of us are subscribed to the linux-btrfs mailing list, and Chris has a decent rapport with most of the btrfs developers.
What more do you want? Actual btrfs developers in Fedora? We don't have any for the majority of filesystems Fedora supports, only XFS. Is there some kind of problem with communicating with the upstream kernel developers about Fedora bugs that I'm not aware of?
Again, it's about length of overall development. ext and XFS have a much longer history in general which is something that's important for file system stability in general. It's also a bit of a catch-22 where the rate of btrfs use in Fedora is so low we don't actually see issues.
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?
I don't think that's really a fair comparison. Just because options are presented doesn't mean all of them are equal. ext2/ext3 and vfat have been in development for much longer than btrfs and length of development is something that's particularly important for file system stability from talking with file system developers. It's not impossible for there to be bugs in ext4 for example (we've certainly seen them before) but btrfs is only now gaining overall stability and we're still more likely to see bugs, especially with custom setups where people are likely to find edge cases.
Nope. We can totally use this because LVM has not existed as long (we use LVM + filesystem by default, not plain partitions), and we still encounter quirks with things like thinp LVM combined with these filesystems. OverlayFS is mostly hot garbage (kernel people know it, container people know it, filesystem people know it, etc.), and yet we continue to try to use it in more places. Stratis is in an odd state of limbo now, since its main developer and advocate left Red Hat.
There are plenty of examples of Red Hat doing crazy/experimental
things... I'd like to think Red Hat isn't supposed to be special here, but in this realm, it seems like it is...
btrfs still doesn't give me the warm fuzzies and I also think this is a bigger issue than other features simply because user data is at stake. We do need to consider that the failure case is not "I can't do X" but "my precious data which I have been trying to snapshot is now inaccessible" in a way that's even worse than say rpm database corruption. Even if it is in the advanced partitioning or not the default, we can still end up with people clicking in because they read an article about how btrfs was the hot new thing.
There are two parts to this here: killing off btrfs entirely and btrfs as release criteria. I think you are correct that there's enough community support to justify keeping btrfs around at least in the kernel (I can't speak for anaconda here)
As for btrfs as release criteria, I'd feel much more confident about that if we could have a file system developer on the btrfs alias. I'm glad to hear the btrfs upstream community has been receptive to bugs but it's still much easier to make things happen if we have contributors who are active in the Fedora community, especially if we want the advanced features that btrfs has (which is why people want it anyway). So, who would you suggest to work with us in Fedora?
You can always CC me, if I get an email from you or anybody else I recognize from the fedora kernel team I'm going to pay attention to it.
Facebook runs more btrfs file systems than Fedora has installs, so we're pretty happy with how it works stability wise. That being said we're slightly more fault tolerant than most users. If you guys are hitting problems chances are we'll hit them eventually as well, so it makes sense for us to be on top of them.
I agree it would be better if somebody inside Fedora was able to help out, but again I'm only an email away. Thanks,
Josef
On 8/28/19 1:58 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 07:53:20AM -0400, Laura Abbott wrote:
On 8/26/19 11:39 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 11:16 AM Laura Abbott labbott@redhat.com wrote:
On 8/23/19 9:00 PM, Chris Murphy 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:
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?
That's a fair question. This bug actually represents how this _should_ work. The concern is that in the past we haven't seen a lot engagement in the past. Maybe today that has changed as demonstrated by this thread. I'm still concerned about having this be a blocker vs. just keeping it as an option, simply because a blocker stops the entire release and it can be a last minute scramble to get things fixed. This was the ideal case for a blocker bugs and I'm skeptical about all bugs going this well. If we had a few more people who were willing to be on the btrfs alias and do the work for blocker bugs it would be a much stronger case.
Out of curiosity, how many such issues have we had in the past 2 years? I personally can't recall any monumental occasions where people were scrambling over *Btrfs* in Fedora. If anything, we continue to inherit the work that SUSE and Facebook are doing upstream as part of us continually updating our kernels, which I'm grateful for.
And in the instances where we've had such issues, has anyone reached out to btrfs folks in Fedora? Chris and myself are the current ones, but there have been others in the past. Both of us are subscribed to the linux-btrfs mailing list, and Chris has a decent rapport with most of the btrfs developers.
What more do you want? Actual btrfs developers in Fedora? We don't have any for the majority of filesystems Fedora supports, only XFS. Is there some kind of problem with communicating with the upstream kernel developers about Fedora bugs that I'm not aware of?
Again, it's about length of overall development. ext and XFS have a much longer history in general which is something that's important for file system stability in general. It's also a bit of a catch-22 where the rate of btrfs use in Fedora is so low we don't actually see issues.
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?
I don't think that's really a fair comparison. Just because options are presented doesn't mean all of them are equal. ext2/ext3 and vfat have been in development for much longer than btrfs and length of development is something that's particularly important for file system stability from talking with file system developers. It's not impossible for there to be bugs in ext4 for example (we've certainly seen them before) but btrfs is only now gaining overall stability and we're still more likely to see bugs, especially with custom setups where people are likely to find edge cases.
Nope. We can totally use this because LVM has not existed as long (we use LVM + filesystem by default, not plain partitions), and we still encounter quirks with things like thinp LVM combined with these filesystems. OverlayFS is mostly hot garbage (kernel people know it, container people know it, filesystem people know it, etc.), and yet we continue to try to use it in more places. Stratis is in an odd state of limbo now, since its main developer and advocate left Red Hat.
There are plenty of examples of Red Hat doing crazy/experimental
things... I'd like to think Red Hat isn't supposed to be special here, but in this realm, it seems like it is...
btrfs still doesn't give me the warm fuzzies and I also think this is a bigger issue than other features simply because user data is at stake. We do need to consider that the failure case is not "I can't do X" but "my precious data which I have been trying to snapshot is now inaccessible" in a way that's even worse than say rpm database corruption. Even if it is in the advanced partitioning or not the default, we can still end up with people clicking in because they read an article about how btrfs was the hot new thing.
There are two parts to this here: killing off btrfs entirely and btrfs as release criteria. I think you are correct that there's enough community support to justify keeping btrfs around at least in the kernel (I can't speak for anaconda here)
As for btrfs as release criteria, I'd feel much more confident about that if we could have a file system developer on the btrfs alias. I'm glad to hear the btrfs upstream community has been receptive to bugs but it's still much easier to make things happen if we have contributors who are active in the Fedora community, especially if we want the advanced features that btrfs has (which is why people want it anyway). So, who would you suggest to work with us in Fedora?
You can always CC me, if I get an email from you or anybody else I recognize from the fedora kernel team I'm going to pay attention to it.
Facebook runs more btrfs file systems than Fedora has installs, so we're pretty happy with how it works stability wise. That being said we're slightly more fault tolerant than most users. If you guys are hitting problems chances are we'll hit them eventually as well, so it makes sense for us to be on top of them.
I agree it would be better if somebody inside Fedora was able to help out, but again I'm only an email away. Thanks,
So it appears you are on the btrfs alias already:
fedora-kernel-btrfs: fs-maint@redhat.com,josef@toxicpanda.com,bugzilla@colorremedies.com
This technically meets the requirements if you are willing to stay on this alias and (continue) to help with requests as needed. I would feel more confident if we had a few more people involved as well. Even better would be proactively going through the bugzillas to help find the btrfs ones.
Fedora is ultimately a community project and as far as the kernel goes, there does seem to be enough interest from the community if Josef et. al. are willing to be involved. I hope to see this continue.
Thanks, Laura
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 02:35:39PM -0400, Laura Abbott wrote:
On 8/28/19 1:58 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 07:53:20AM -0400, Laura Abbott wrote:
On 8/26/19 11:39 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 11:16 AM Laura Abbott labbott@redhat.com wrote:
On 8/23/19 9:00 PM, Chris Murphy 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?
That's a fair question. This bug actually represents how this _should_ work. The concern is that in the past we haven't seen a lot engagement in the past. Maybe today that has changed as demonstrated by this thread. I'm still concerned about having this be a blocker vs. just keeping it as an option, simply because a blocker stops the entire release and it can be a last minute scramble to get things fixed. This was the ideal case for a blocker bugs and I'm skeptical about all bugs going this well. If we had a few more people who were willing to be on the btrfs alias and do the work for blocker bugs it would be a much stronger case.
Out of curiosity, how many such issues have we had in the past 2 years? I personally can't recall any monumental occasions where people were scrambling over *Btrfs* in Fedora. If anything, we continue to inherit the work that SUSE and Facebook are doing upstream as part of us continually updating our kernels, which I'm grateful for.
And in the instances where we've had such issues, has anyone reached out to btrfs folks in Fedora? Chris and myself are the current ones, but there have been others in the past. Both of us are subscribed to the linux-btrfs mailing list, and Chris has a decent rapport with most of the btrfs developers.
What more do you want? Actual btrfs developers in Fedora? We don't have any for the majority of filesystems Fedora supports, only XFS. Is there some kind of problem with communicating with the upstream kernel developers about Fedora bugs that I'm not aware of?
Again, it's about length of overall development. ext and XFS have a much longer history in general which is something that's important for file system stability in general. It's also a bit of a catch-22 where the rate of btrfs use in Fedora is so low we don't actually see issues.
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?
I don't think that's really a fair comparison. Just because options are presented doesn't mean all of them are equal. ext2/ext3 and vfat have been in development for much longer than btrfs and length of development is something that's particularly important for file system stability from talking with file system developers. It's not impossible for there to be bugs in ext4 for example (we've certainly seen them before) but btrfs is only now gaining overall stability and we're still more likely to see bugs, especially with custom setups where people are likely to find edge cases.
Nope. We can totally use this because LVM has not existed as long (we use LVM + filesystem by default, not plain partitions), and we still encounter quirks with things like thinp LVM combined with these filesystems. OverlayFS is mostly hot garbage (kernel people know it, container people know it, filesystem people know it, etc.), and yet we continue to try to use it in more places. Stratis is in an odd state of limbo now, since its main developer and advocate left Red Hat.
There are plenty of examples of Red Hat doing crazy/experimental
things... I'd like to think Red Hat isn't supposed to be special here, but in this realm, it seems like it is...
btrfs still doesn't give me the warm fuzzies and I also think this is a bigger issue than other features simply because user data is at stake. We do need to consider that the failure case is not "I can't do X" but "my precious data which I have been trying to snapshot is now inaccessible" in a way that's even worse than say rpm database corruption. Even if it is in the advanced partitioning or not the default, we can still end up with people clicking in because they read an article about how btrfs was the hot new thing.
There are two parts to this here: killing off btrfs entirely and btrfs as release criteria. I think you are correct that there's enough community support to justify keeping btrfs around at least in the kernel (I can't speak for anaconda here)
As for btrfs as release criteria, I'd feel much more confident about that if we could have a file system developer on the btrfs alias. I'm glad to hear the btrfs upstream community has been receptive to bugs but it's still much easier to make things happen if we have contributors who are active in the Fedora community, especially if we want the advanced features that btrfs has (which is why people want it anyway). So, who would you suggest to work with us in Fedora?
You can always CC me, if I get an email from you or anybody else I recognize from the fedora kernel team I'm going to pay attention to it.
Facebook runs more btrfs file systems than Fedora has installs, so we're pretty happy with how it works stability wise. That being said we're slightly more fault tolerant than most users. If you guys are hitting problems chances are we'll hit them eventually as well, so it makes sense for us to be on top of them.
I agree it would be better if somebody inside Fedora was able to help out, but again I'm only an email away. Thanks,
So it appears you are on the btrfs alias already:
fedora-kernel-btrfs: fs-maint@redhat.com,josef@toxicpanda.com,bugzilla@colorremedies.com
This technically meets the requirements if you are willing to stay on this alias and (continue) to help with requests as needed. I would feel more confident if we had a few more people involved as well. Even better would be proactively going through the bugzillas to help find the btrfs ones.
Yeah that goes into a bucket that basically is ignored. The only time I'll peek in there is if somebody specifically pokes me, because generally speaking we hit the problems and fix them welllllll before Fedora users start to notice them.
If it'll make people feel more comfortable I'll start sticking my head in there every week or so and see if something needs my attention. Thanks,
Josef
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 2:40 PM Josef Bacik josef@toxicpanda.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 02:35:39PM -0400, Laura Abbott wrote:
On 8/28/19 1:58 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 07:53:20AM -0400, Laura Abbott wrote:
On 8/26/19 11:39 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 11:16 AM Laura Abbott labbott@redhat.com wrote:
On 8/23/19 9:00 PM, Chris Murphy 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? >
That's a fair question. This bug actually represents how this _should_ work. The concern is that in the past we haven't seen a lot engagement in the past. Maybe today that has changed as demonstrated by this thread. I'm still concerned about having this be a blocker vs. just keeping it as an option, simply because a blocker stops the entire release and it can be a last minute scramble to get things fixed. This was the ideal case for a blocker bugs and I'm skeptical about all bugs going this well. If we had a few more people who were willing to be on the btrfs alias and do the work for blocker bugs it would be a much stronger case.
Out of curiosity, how many such issues have we had in the past 2 years? I personally can't recall any monumental occasions where people were scrambling over *Btrfs* in Fedora. If anything, we continue to inherit the work that SUSE and Facebook are doing upstream as part of us continually updating our kernels, which I'm grateful for.
And in the instances where we've had such issues, has anyone reached out to btrfs folks in Fedora? Chris and myself are the current ones, but there have been others in the past. Both of us are subscribed to the linux-btrfs mailing list, and Chris has a decent rapport with most of the btrfs developers.
What more do you want? Actual btrfs developers in Fedora? We don't have any for the majority of filesystems Fedora supports, only XFS. Is there some kind of problem with communicating with the upstream kernel developers about Fedora bugs that I'm not aware of?
Again, it's about length of overall development. ext and XFS have a much longer history in general which is something that's important for file system stability in general. It's also a bit of a catch-22 where the rate of btrfs use in Fedora is so low we don't actually see issues.
> 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? >
I don't think that's really a fair comparison. Just because options are presented doesn't mean all of them are equal. ext2/ext3 and vfat have been in development for much longer than btrfs and length of development is something that's particularly important for file system stability from talking with file system developers. It's not impossible for there to be bugs in ext4 for example (we've certainly seen them before) but btrfs is only now gaining overall stability and we're still more likely to see bugs, especially with custom setups where people are likely to find edge cases.
Nope. We can totally use this because LVM has not existed as long (we use LVM + filesystem by default, not plain partitions), and we still encounter quirks with things like thinp LVM combined with these filesystems. OverlayFS is mostly hot garbage (kernel people know it, container people know it, filesystem people know it, etc.), and yet we continue to try to use it in more places. Stratis is in an odd state of limbo now, since its main developer and advocate left Red Hat.
There are plenty of examples of Red Hat doing crazy/experimental
things... I'd like to think Red Hat isn't supposed to be special here, but in this realm, it seems like it is...
btrfs still doesn't give me the warm fuzzies and I also think this is a bigger issue than other features simply because user data is at stake. We do need to consider that the failure case is not "I can't do X" but "my precious data which I have been trying to snapshot is now inaccessible" in a way that's even worse than say rpm database corruption. Even if it is in the advanced partitioning or not the default, we can still end up with people clicking in because they read an article about how btrfs was the hot new thing.
There are two parts to this here: killing off btrfs entirely and btrfs as release criteria. I think you are correct that there's enough community support to justify keeping btrfs around at least in the kernel (I can't speak for anaconda here)
As for btrfs as release criteria, I'd feel much more confident about that if we could have a file system developer on the btrfs alias. I'm glad to hear the btrfs upstream community has been receptive to bugs but it's still much easier to make things happen if we have contributors who are active in the Fedora community, especially if we want the advanced features that btrfs has (which is why people want it anyway). So, who would you suggest to work with us in Fedora?
You can always CC me, if I get an email from you or anybody else I recognize from the fedora kernel team I'm going to pay attention to it.
Facebook runs more btrfs file systems than Fedora has installs, so we're pretty happy with how it works stability wise. That being said we're slightly more fault tolerant than most users. If you guys are hitting problems chances are we'll hit them eventually as well, so it makes sense for us to be on top of them.
I agree it would be better if somebody inside Fedora was able to help out, but again I'm only an email away. Thanks,
So it appears you are on the btrfs alias already:
fedora-kernel-btrfs: fs-maint@redhat.com,josef@toxicpanda.com,bugzilla@colorremedies.com
This technically meets the requirements if you are willing to stay on this alias and (continue) to help with requests as needed. I would feel more confident if we had a few more people involved as well. Even better would be proactively going through the bugzillas to help find the btrfs ones.
Yeah that goes into a bucket that basically is ignored. The only time I'll peek in there is if somebody specifically pokes me, because generally speaking we hit the problems and fix them welllllll before Fedora users start to notice them.
Fedora chugs along at the rate of daily upstream Linus snapshots. If you're hitting and fixing issues before Fedora users see them, I'm curious why Fedora users would ever see them.
Where does the lag come from? Are the fixes queued internally? Staged in an upstream subsystem tree? Is there a way for interested btrfs people to proactively just get those fixed in Fedora before users hit them?
josh
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 03:01:16PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 2:40 PM Josef Bacik josef@toxicpanda.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 02:35:39PM -0400, Laura Abbott wrote:
On 8/28/19 1:58 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 07:53:20AM -0400, Laura Abbott wrote:
On 8/26/19 11:39 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 11:16 AM Laura Abbott labbott@redhat.com wrote: > > On 8/23/19 9:00 PM, Chris Murphy 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? > > > > That's a fair question. This bug actually represents how this _should_ > work. The concern is that in the past we haven't seen a lot engagement > in the past. Maybe today that has changed as demonstrated by this thread. > I'm still concerned about having this be a blocker vs. just keeping it > as an option, simply because a blocker stops the entire release and it > can be a last minute scramble to get things fixed. This was the ideal > case for a blocker bugs and I'm skeptical about all bugs going this well. > If we had a few more people who were willing to be on the btrfs alias and > do the work for blocker bugs it would be a much stronger case. >
Out of curiosity, how many such issues have we had in the past 2 years? I personally can't recall any monumental occasions where people were scrambling over *Btrfs* in Fedora. If anything, we continue to inherit the work that SUSE and Facebook are doing upstream as part of us continually updating our kernels, which I'm grateful for.
And in the instances where we've had such issues, has anyone reached out to btrfs folks in Fedora? Chris and myself are the current ones, but there have been others in the past. Both of us are subscribed to the linux-btrfs mailing list, and Chris has a decent rapport with most of the btrfs developers.
What more do you want? Actual btrfs developers in Fedora? We don't have any for the majority of filesystems Fedora supports, only XFS. Is there some kind of problem with communicating with the upstream kernel developers about Fedora bugs that I'm not aware of?
Again, it's about length of overall development. ext and XFS have a much longer history in general which is something that's important for file system stability in general. It's also a bit of a catch-22 where the rate of btrfs use in Fedora is so low we don't actually see issues.
> > 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? > > > > I don't think that's really a fair comparison. Just because options > are presented doesn't mean all of them are equal. ext2/ext3 and vfat > have been in development for much longer than btrfs and length of development > is something that's particularly important for file system stability > from talking with file system developers. It's not impossible for there > to be bugs in ext4 for example (we've certainly seen them before) but > btrfs is only now gaining overall stability and we're still more likely to see > bugs, especially with custom setups where people are likely to find > edge cases. >
Nope. We can totally use this because LVM has not existed as long (we use LVM + filesystem by default, not plain partitions), and we still encounter quirks with things like thinp LVM combined with these filesystems. OverlayFS is mostly hot garbage (kernel people know it, container people know it, filesystem people know it, etc.), and yet we continue to try to use it in more places. Stratis is in an odd state of limbo now, since its main developer and advocate left Red Hat. > There are plenty of examples of Red Hat doing crazy/experimental things... I'd like to think Red Hat isn't supposed to be special here, but in this realm, it seems like it is...
btrfs still doesn't give me the warm fuzzies and I also think this is a bigger issue than other features simply because user data is at stake. We do need to consider that the failure case is not "I can't do X" but "my precious data which I have been trying to snapshot is now inaccessible" in a way that's even worse than say rpm database corruption. Even if it is in the advanced partitioning or not the default, we can still end up with people clicking in because they read an article about how btrfs was the hot new thing.
There are two parts to this here: killing off btrfs entirely and btrfs as release criteria. I think you are correct that there's enough community support to justify keeping btrfs around at least in the kernel (I can't speak for anaconda here)
As for btrfs as release criteria, I'd feel much more confident about that if we could have a file system developer on the btrfs alias. I'm glad to hear the btrfs upstream community has been receptive to bugs but it's still much easier to make things happen if we have contributors who are active in the Fedora community, especially if we want the advanced features that btrfs has (which is why people want it anyway). So, who would you suggest to work with us in Fedora?
You can always CC me, if I get an email from you or anybody else I recognize from the fedora kernel team I'm going to pay attention to it.
Facebook runs more btrfs file systems than Fedora has installs, so we're pretty happy with how it works stability wise. That being said we're slightly more fault tolerant than most users. If you guys are hitting problems chances are we'll hit them eventually as well, so it makes sense for us to be on top of them.
I agree it would be better if somebody inside Fedora was able to help out, but again I'm only an email away. Thanks,
So it appears you are on the btrfs alias already:
fedora-kernel-btrfs: fs-maint@redhat.com,josef@toxicpanda.com,bugzilla@colorremedies.com
This technically meets the requirements if you are willing to stay on this alias and (continue) to help with requests as needed. I would feel more confident if we had a few more people involved as well. Even better would be proactively going through the bugzillas to help find the btrfs ones.
Yeah that goes into a bucket that basically is ignored. The only time I'll peek in there is if somebody specifically pokes me, because generally speaking we hit the problems and fix them welllllll before Fedora users start to notice them.
Fedora chugs along at the rate of daily upstream Linus snapshots. If you're hitting and fixing issues before Fedora users see them, I'm curious why Fedora users would ever see them.
Where does the lag come from? Are the fixes queued internally? Staged in an upstream subsystem tree? Is there a way for interested btrfs people to proactively just get those fixed in Fedora before users hit them?
For this particular example we saw the problem in testing and had a patch on the mailinglist before you hit the problem. It was in a tree and sent to Linus, and was merged the day after the bugzilla was reported. So yes before users see them, unless they are subscribed to the daily snapshots, which I assume is just for testing right? Or were you guys going to ship 5.3-rc0?
On one hand I understand all of the consternation around making btrfs bugs blockers for Fedora, but on the other hand it seems a bit silly to be having this conversation at all based on hitting a bug that went into the merge window and then was fixed before rc1 was even cut. Thanks,
Josef
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 1:07 PM Josef Bacik josef@toxicpanda.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 03:01:16PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
Fedora chugs along at the rate of daily upstream Linus snapshots. If you're hitting and fixing issues before Fedora users see them, I'm curious why Fedora users would ever see them.
Where does the lag come from? Are the fixes queued internally? Staged in an upstream subsystem tree? Is there a way for interested btrfs people to proactively just get those fixed in Fedora before users hit them?
For this particular example we saw the problem in testing and had a patch on the mailinglist before you hit the problem. It was in a tree and sent to Linus, and was merged the day after the bugzilla was reported. So yes before users see them, unless they are subscribed to the daily snapshots, which I assume is just for testing right? Or were you guys going to ship 5.3-rc0?
On one hand I understand all of the consternation around making btrfs bugs blockers for Fedora, but on the other hand it seems a bit silly to be having this conversation at all based on hitting a bug that went into the merge window and then was fixed before rc1 was even cut. Thanks,
It is silly, if it's really safe to say that Btrfs won't be the default file system in any release blocking deliverable. Having blocker status was always a means to that end. But right now it's maybe three (?) automated tests that depend on Btrfs working. If Fedora Workstation defaulted to Btrfs, that's dozens or even hundreds of tests? Adam?
Bug fix was merged in rc2. The patch on linux-btrfs@
25 Jul 2019 11:27:29 +0300 which is just before kernel-5.3.0-0.rc1.git3.1.fc31, 2019-07-25 21:01:20
Plausibly it was in all rc0 and rc1 kernels. What if this deadlock were happening in ext4 for all rc0 and rc1 kernels? What questions get asked? How did the bug not get caught by xfstests before it got into linux-next? Does anyone pop a gasket on lkml? Is this just a weird sometimes it happens rarely kind of thing?
I don't know the exact nature of the bug, which goes to the kernel team's point that someone who does know needs to tell them the autopsy summary so they can really assess the default fs question.
And another question for QA. If it were Btrfs by default for Workstation, would you just convert all the tests that rely only on ext4 now to Btrfs? Or duplicate those tests so you can run them in parallel? How much more testing is that and what's the impact on time and resources?
-- Chris Murphy
kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Chris Murphy -
Josef Bacik -
Josh Boyer -
Justin Forbes -
Laura Abbott -
Neal Gompa