xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [3.0-stable PATCH 00/36] Proposed 3.0-stable bug patches

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [3.0-stable PATCH 00/36] Proposed 3.0-stable bug patches
From: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 11:27:22 -0600
Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20121205214505.GG29399@dastard>
References: <20121203144208.143464631@xxxxxxx> <20121205214505.GG29399@dastard>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20120122 Thunderbird/9.0
On 12/05/12 15:45, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 05:42:08PM -0600, Mark Tinguely wrote:
Here a collection of bug fixes for 3.0-stable. Many of these patches
were also selected by Dave Chinner as possible 3.0-stable patches:
        http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2012-08/msg00255.html

I chose only bug fixes and kept the changes to a minimum.

Patch 21/22 are required for the bug fix in patch 23 but they are
important changes in their own right.

So I'll ask the same question that Christoph asked me: If nobody is
reporting problems on 3.0.x, why do this and risk regression and
fallout that requires fixing?

FWIW, what testing have you done?

Cheers,

Dave.


Do you mean?

        http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2012-09/msg00002.html

I read that message as a concern that your original Linux 3.0-stable
patch series contained some items that did not meet the -stable
criteria.

As for adding patches to 3.0-stable. I believed then and now that
proactively suggesting bug fixes into 3.0-stable is a good thing
because it is the long term stable branch.

A few days after Christoph's email, I put my "Reviewed-by:" on your
series.

        http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2012-09/msg00167.html

As for testing, the whole series is spun on xfstests loops for days on
x86_32 and x86_64 boxes, just like we test a top of tree patch series.

--Mark.

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