On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 2:54 PM Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 02:36:35PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 2:28 PM Kent Overstreet > > <kent.overstreet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 10:06:32AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jun 15, 2025 at 9:20 PM Kent Overstreet > > > > <kent.overstreet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Where are we at with getting this in? I've got users who keep asking, so > > > > > hoping we can get it backported to 6.15 > > > > > > > > I'm planning to queue this for 6.17, but hoping to get an ACK from Miklos first. > > > > > > This is a regression for bcachefs users, why isn't it being considered for > > > 6.16? > > > > This is an ovl behavior change on fs like ext4 regardless of bcachefs. > > This change of behavior, which is desired for your users, could expose other > > users to other regressions. > > Regressions, like? > > The behavioral change is only for casess that were an error before, so > we should only be concerned about regressions if we think there might be > a bug in your patch, Exactly my concern. Before the change, it was not possible to have a casefolded dentry in the overlay stack. Now it is very much possible. We detect it and report an error in some lookup cases, but not in all of them. For example in ovl_lower_positive(). Does it matter? Can it cause harm? I hope not, but not sure. > and I think it's simple enough that we don't need to be concerned about that. Yes. famous last words. I will let Miklos be the judge of that. Thanks, Amir.
