xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/102]: xfs: 3.0.x stable kernel update
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2012 16:04:06 +1000
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20120901231019.GC6896@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1345698180-13612-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120901231019.GC6896@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Sat, Sep 01, 2012 at 07:10:19PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 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.

You didn't troll the RH bugzilla ;)

The XFS code base in RHEL6 is sitting at 3.0, and several of the
problems that have workarounds in 3.0.x don't fix the problems
reported (e.g. the log space hangs), while the fixes in the more
recent mainline kernel do.

I simply figured that I've got to do this much work to fix all the
bugs reported in RHEL6 and given the code bases are almost identical
I'd do a community service and push it to 3.0.x first. I'm quite
happy not to push it to 3.0.x if the consensus is that it is too
much churn.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>