[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfs: fix broken error handling in xfs_vm_writepage

To: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: fix broken error handling in xfs_vm_writepage
From: Peter Hüwe <PeterHuewe@xxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 08:44:22 +0100
Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20121123010123.GD18889@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1353625410-1413-1-git-send-email-peterhuewe@xxxxxx> <20121123010123.GD18889@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.6.7; KDE/4.8.5; x86_64; ; )
Hi Dave,

Am Freitag, 23. November 2012, 02:01:23 schrieb Dave Chinner:
> Any particular reason you picked this patch for a backport and not
> many of the other fixes that went into the 3.7 series?

Mainly two reasons:
time and before spending many hours trying to 'backport' all this stuff, I 
wanted to see what the response would be like in general.
I'm still new to the stable kernel business, so I already expected that there 
will be some learning curve ;)

Maybe I should add a "Learners Sticker" to my first xx stable related messages 

So I really appreciate your feedback.

> As it is, this problem is not that easy to hit, and I'm wary of
> backporting changes to the io completion/Io submission error
> handling paths to stable kernels without wider testing of the fix
> (i.e. release of 3.7 and then a couple of weeks of people using it).
> That's the reason why I didn't put a cc to the stable kernel on the
> commit in the first place.
> Sometimes there's good reason for being cautious about
> backporting fixes to stable kernels - if the problem is not being
> reported by users then letting the fixes get out into the real world
> for a while before backporting them to the stable kernels is the
> right approach. Stable kernels are supposed to be stable, and as
> such we want to be certain that changes are not going to have
> unintneded consequences and then have to rush more fixes back to the
> stable kernels because we broke them....

As stated in the other mail, I was a bit too eager here as well ;)
We should probably wait with the inclusion - so sorry for the noise.


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