Package Details: zfs-dkms-staging-git 2.3.1.r0.gf3e4043a36-1

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/zfs-dkms-staging-git.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: zfs-dkms-staging-git
Description: Kernel modules for the Zettabyte File System (release staging branch) with compatibility patches for latest stable kernel.
Upstream URL: https://zfsonlinux.org/
Licenses: CDDL-1.0
Groups: zfs-staging-git
Conflicts: zfs-dkms
Provides: SPL-MODULE, zfs, zfs-dkms, ZFS-MODULE
Submitter: bjin
Maintainer: bjin (darkbasic)
Last Packager: bjin
Votes: 10
Popularity: 0.24
First Submitted: 2024-01-15 11:23 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2025-03-18 15:07 (UTC)

Dependencies (4)

Required by (20)

Sources (4)

Latest Comments

« First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next › Last »

mabod commented on 2024-10-15 16:39 (UTC)

@fermino: I got just biten by this bug today. Luckily, the pools could recover from the corruption. I assume setting zfs_vdev_disk_classic=1 is a good workaround. But I have not tested it yet.

fermino commented on 2024-10-15 16:12 (UTC)

Users with LUKS2 setups beware of the following corruption bug: https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/issues/16631

If it were me I wouldn't update without having a tested working backup :)

darkbasic commented on 2024-10-10 06:54 (UTC)

@bjin it compiles fine but if floods your journal with tons of (harmless but dangerous looking) kernel errors.

bjin commented on 2024-10-10 03:32 (UTC)

I reviewed the situation, and it seems that current staging-branch (actually 2.2.6 release) compiles fine with kernel 6.11 release.

@darkbasic: as for the three patches your cherry-picked, all of them doesn't seem to be critical. I only plan to include patches that fixes compilation on newer kernel, fixes critical bugs like potential data losses or craches. So I don't plan to cherry-pick these three patches, and will just wait for new zfs stable release and staging branch updates.

Feel free to maintain your own branch/package if you feel necessary.

darkbasic commented on 2024-10-06 12:45 (UTC)

Thanks for your passion and helpfulness

Thank you for your work maintaining this package.

I want to note that, to keep things simple, I only plan to backport compat patches and fixes to critical bugs. And only thosed landed in master branch. This way we don't divert from upstream too munch.

These patches landed in zfs master branch weeks ago and are compat patches, so they should be eligible.

I will look into the satuation once 2.3 is released officially.

Unfortunately that won't work for me. I myself use zfs root on all my machines and I need to be able to seamlessly upgrade every time a new stable kernel pops out in the Arch repositories.

I've forked your package and added the compat patches: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/zfs-dkms-staging-compat-git

Once you return from your vacation we can evaluate if there is room to co-maintain this package or any other way to ensure timely support for latest stable kernel releases. In the meantime, have fun on your vacation!

bjin commented on 2024-10-06 11:02 (UTC)

@darkbasic Thanks for your passion and helpfulness. I'm on vacation right now, but I'm still actively maintaining this package. (I'm using zfs root on all my machines)

I want to note that, to keep things simple, I only plan to backport compat patches and fixes to critical bugs. And only thosed landed in master branch. This way we don't divert from upstream too munch.

I will look into the satuation once 2.3 is released officially.

darkbasic commented on 2024-10-06 10:13 (UTC)

By the way you can find my fork here: https://github.com/darkbasic/zfs-dkms-staging-git/tree/fix/611 I'm writing from 6.11.2-arch1-1 using zfs-dkms from that repo right now.

darkbasic commented on 2024-10-06 08:30 (UTC)

2.3.0-rc1 is not an option for everybody: zfsbootmenu wouldn't support its feature set yet and you would be stuck with an unbootable system.

which, sadly, doesn't appear to be available as a dkms package or a zfs-linux package due to missing maintainer

That wouldn't be too hard to either package or maintain, I think there is simply little point in doing so right now util 2.3.x becomes stable.

Is 2.2.6 safe to run on 6.11?

I'm pretty sure it is and you can verify it yourself with a simple command:

git log -i --grep "linux"

c84a37ae93b5f2b32d30bee1cb942627c4c6caab 6f50f8e16b7c4a3f1925b41e3d47b479cd7b2d9f 90af1e83e8abb89668b82d859940a596b195fe75

These are the only compat commits that you would find on 2.3 outside of what's already on 2.2.6. 90af1e83e8abb89668b82d859940a596b195fe75 is a 6.10-only bugfix, 6f50f8e16b7c4a3f1925b41e3d47b479cd7b2d9f is the commit that I've asked to backport (all it does is suppressing some annoying warnings) while c84a37ae93b5f2b32d30bee1cb942627c4c6caab is another 6.10+ bugfix that was introduced AFTER 6.11 has been declared supported (so it would be nice to have but not considered critical by upstream).

@bjin would it be possible to co-maintain this package so that I can help you to timely add compat patches once stable kernels get released (and removing them once they get backported upstream)?

paulieg commented on 2024-10-06 07:51 (UTC)

Is 2.2.6 safe to run on 6.11? Upstream claims > 6.10 is unsupported on 2.2.6 and suggest using 2.3.0-rc1 instead (which, sadly, doesn't appear to be available as a dkms package or a zfs-linux package due to missing maintainer).

darkbasic commented on 2024-10-03 17:40 (UTC)

Hi, could you please backport this? https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/pull/16539 Thanks

« First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next › Last »