FAILED: patch "[PATCH] ext4: simplify checking quota limits in ext4_statfs()" failed to apply to 5.5-stable tree

The patch below does not apply to the 5.5-stable tree.
If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to <[email protected]>.

thanks,

greg k-h

------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------

From 46d36880d1c6f9b9a0cbaf90235355ea1f4cab96 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jan Kara <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2020 12:11:48 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] ext4: simplify checking quota limits in ext4_statfs()

Coverity reports that conditions checking quota limits in ext4_statfs() contain dead code. Indeed it is right and current conditions can be simplified.

index 88b213bd32bc..f23367a779e8 100644
@@ -5585,10 +5585,7 @@ static int ext4_statfs_project(struct super_block *sb,
 		return PTR_ERR(dquot);
 	spin_lock(&dquot->dq_dqb_lock);
 
-	limit = 0;
-	if (dquot->dq_dqb.dqb_bsoftlimit &&
-	    (!limit || dquot->dq_dqb.dqb_bsoftlimit < limit))
-		limit = dquot->dq_dqb.dqb_bsoftlimit;
+	limit = dquot->dq_dqb.dqb_bsoftlimit;
 	if (dquot->dq_dqb.dqb_bhardlimit &&
 	    (!limit || dquot->dq_dqb.dqb_bhardlimit < limit))
 		limit = dquot->dq_dqb.dqb_bhardlimit;

@@ -5603,10 +5600,7 @@ static int ext4_statfs_project(struct super_block *sb,
 			 (buf->f_blocks - curblock) : 0;
 	}
 
-	limit = 0;
-	if (dquot->dq_dqb.dqb_isoftlimit &&
-	    (!limit || dquot->dq_dqb.dqb_isoftlimit < limit))
-		limit = dquot->dq_dqb.dqb_isoftlimit;
+	limit = dquot->dq_dqb.dqb_isoftlimit;
 	if (dquot->dq_dqb.dqb_ihardlimit &&
 	    (!limit || dquot->dq_dqb.dqb_ihardlimit < limit))
 		limit = dquot->dq_dqb.dqb_ihardlimit;

I've also grabbed 57c32ea42f8e ("ext4: choose hardlimit when softlimit is larger than hardlimit in ext4_statfs_project()") which fixes a user visible issue and introduces the issue fixed by this patch.

Both queued for 5.5 and 5.4.

I'm not quite sure that this patch is stable material.

Thanks,
Sasha

Yeah, that was a misfire on my part. I think I had somehow convinced myself that it was a prereq for another patch that was stable material, but looking at it again, that's not the case.

- Ted

I'll drop it, thanks.

Thanks,
Sasha