thanks for your response!
Am Freitag, 23. November 2012, 01:49:37 schrieb Dave Chinner:
> [added xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 11:59:35PM +0100, Peter Huewe wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> While I appreciate what you are doing here, can you please send
> stable backport patches to the xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx list for review
> before sending them to stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx? There may already be
> someone doing this work, and we want to make sure that backports are
> correct, tested and worth the risk of fixing before asking the
> (already overworked) stable kernel maintainers to include it.
Yeah you're right, especially with fs changes we should be more cautious,
sorry about the noise then.
I'm one of the few people who offered Greg KH a hand after his 'help wanted'
message/blog post and one of the 'todos' was to look through git-commits@ and
pick those who look worth of including into stable.
I was probably a bit too eager here, and skimming from top to bottom of git-
commits might also not have been a really good idea either ;)
> As such, how did you test that the fix works on the stable kernels
> you are targetting? AFAIK, I'm the only person who has the
> filesystem images that reproducably triggered this corruption
I was mainly looking at:
- does it apply cleanly
- does it still boot
- basic functional test
- short review of the affected code after applying the patch i.e. does it still
look okay/as intended?
> > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
> > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 3.6.x
> > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 3.4.x
> > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 3.2.x
> If we are pushing this fix back to stable kernels, then it
> should go back to 3.0.x as well.
3.0.x failed my first test (does it apply cleanly?) so I left it out, as a
dedicated backport is needed.