zfsUnstable: 2.2.3-unstable-2024-04-09 -> 2.2.3-unstable-2024-04-20 [enables linux 6.8]

[Mic92]

Upstream now supports 6.8 in their META: openzfs/zfs@454c0b0

Description of changes

Things done

• Built on platform(s)
  • x86_64-linux
  • aarch64-linux
  • x86_64-darwin
  • aarch64-darwin
• For non-Linux: Is sandboxing enabled in nix.conf? (See Nix manual)
  • sandbox = relaxed
  • sandbox = true
• Tested, as applicable:
  • NixOS test(s) (look inside nixos/tests)
  • and/or package tests
  • or, for functions and "core" functionality, tests in lib/tests or pkgs/test
  • made sure NixOS tests are linked to the relevant packages
• Tested compilation of all packages that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage
• Tested basic functionality of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
• 24.05 Release Notes (or backporting 23.05 and 23.11 Release notes)
  • (Package updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is major or breaking
  • (Module updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is significant
  • (Module addition) Added a release notes entry if adding a new NixOS module
• Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

---

Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.

[nbraud]

Result of nixpkgs-review pr 305682 run on x86_64-linux 1

21 packages built:

• linuxKernel.packages.linux_4_19.zfs_unstable
• linuxPackages_4_19_hardened.zfs_unstable (linuxKernel.packages.linux_4_19_hardened.zfs_unstable)
• linuxKernel.packages.linux_5_10.zfs_unstable
• linuxPackages_5_10_hardened.zfs_unstable (linuxKernel.packages.linux_5_10_hardened.zfs_unstable)
• linuxKernel.packages.linux_5_15.zfs_unstable
• linuxPackages_5_15_hardened.zfs_unstable (linuxKernel.packages.linux_5_15_hardened.zfs_unstable)
• linuxKernel.packages.linux_5_4.zfs_unstable
• linuxPackages_5_4_hardened.zfs_unstable (linuxKernel.packages.linux_5_4_hardened.zfs_unstable)
• linuxKernel.packages.linux_6_1.zfs_unstable
• linuxPackages_6_1_hardened.zfs_unstable (linuxKernel.packages.linux_6_1_hardened.zfs_unstable)
• linuxPackages.zfs_unstable (linuxKernel.packages.linux_6_6.zfs_unstable)
• linuxPackages_hardened.zfs_unstable (linuxPackages_6_6_hardened.zfs_unstable)
• linuxPackages_latest.zfs_unstable (linuxKernel.packages.linux_6_8.zfs_unstable)
• linuxPackages_latest-libre.zfs_unstable (linuxKernel.packages.linux_latest_libre.zfs_unstable)
• linuxPackages-libre.zfs_unstable (linuxKernel.packages.linux_libre.zfs_unstable)
• linuxPackages_lqx.zfs_unstable (linuxKernel.packages.linux_lqx.zfs_unstable)
• linuxPackages_xanmod.zfs_unstable (linuxKernel.packages.linux_xanmod.zfs_unstable)
• linuxPackages_xanmod_latest.zfs_unstable (linuxKernel.packages.linux_xanmod_latest.zfs_unstable ,linuxPackages_xanmod_stable.zfs_unstable)
• linuxPackages_zen.zfs_unstable (linuxKernel.packages.linux_zen.zfs_unstable)
• zfs_unstable
• zfs_unstable.dev

[qubitnano]

This commit appears to be from master and not the tip of zfs-2.2.4-staging. Does this include any in progress code meant for 2.3 despite the kernel bump?

[amarshall]

Indeed. This commit doesn’t follow the stated policy here. Current latest on the branch is 72e4996a54fe54b93bf1e667a5e60099375fe08f.

[amarshall]

Indeed. This commit doesn’t follow the stated policy here. Current latest on the branch is 72e4996a54fe54b93bf1e667a5e60099375fe08f.

[jaen]

FWIW 2.2.4 patchset PR was just merged (openzfs/zfs#16107), so maybe it makes sense to bump the PR to that version?

[amarshall]

I think that’s probably fine. Though may make sense to just wait for 2.2.4 to be tagged as that shouldn’t be long.

[amarshall]

2.2.4 is tagged upstream; see #308642

[nbraud]

OK, let's close this in favour of #308642 then