xfs
[Top] [All Lists]
<prev [Date] next>
[Advanced]
 <prev [Thread] next>

Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/102]: xfs: 3.0.x stable kernel update

from [Christoph Hellwig] [Permanent Link][Original]
To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/102]: xfs: 3.0.x stable kernel update
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 19:10:19 -0400
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1345698180-13612-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1345698180-13612-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 
I've done a brief look over the patches this week and while I can't spot
anything wrong I'm defintively a bit concerned about the amount of churn
for a long term stable series.  A lot of this does not seem to fit the
strict -stable criteria, and given that I've not really seen any major
issues with the current 3.0-stable codebase I'm wondering what the
guranteed gain vs the status quo is.
[More with this subject...]
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Previous by Date:  Re: [PATCH] xfs: flush workers before stopping log, Christoph Hellwig
Next by Date:  Re: 3.5.2: moving files from xfs/disk -> nfs: radix_tree_lookup_slot+0xe/0x10, Christoph Hellwig
Previous by Thread:  Re: [PATCH] xfs: flush workers before stopping log, Christoph Hellwig
Next by Thread:  Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/102]: xfs: 3.0.x stable kernel update, Dave Chinner
Indexes:  [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]