xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ 68/89] xfs: fix _xfs_buf_find oops on blocks beyond the filesystem

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ 68/89] xfs: fix _xfs_buf_find oops on blocks beyond the filesystem end
From: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 09:07:17 -0600
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>, Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>, CAI Qian <caiqian@xxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20130215014729.GR26694@dastard>
References: <20130201130207.444989281@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20130201130212.381996681@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <511BB198.1080609@xxxxxxxxxx> <20130213161845.GA20916@xxxxxxxxx> <20130214000730.GI26694@dastard> <20130214192614.GA6945@xxxxxxxxx> <20130214195512.GQ30652@xxxxxxx> <20130214200501.GA23036@xxxxxxxxx> <20130215014729.GR26694@dastard>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Hey,

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:47:29PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 12:05:01PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 01:55:12PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> > > > Ok, how about I never apply any xfs stable kernel patch, unless you send
> > > > it to stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?
> > > 
> > > Dave has made it clear that he doesn't want to be involved in maintaining
> > > -stable kernels.
> 
> I don't think you quite understand, Ben.

...

> > > > I have that rule in place for some other subsystems that don't want me
> > > > applying stuff that they aren't aware of, and have no problem doing the 
> > > > same
> > > > thing here.
> > > > 
> > > > Just let me know.
> 
> Sounds like a fine idea, Greg.
> 
> > > Here are the usual suspects:
> > > 
> > > Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
> > > Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>
> > > Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> I don't think it should be restricted to individuals.  The private
> thread used to request this backport is exactly why I didn't see
> the request in a timely fashion, and also the reason why we didn't
> end up with notifications for review going to xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> Hence I'd suggest the only thing that matters is that there is a cc
> to xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, because that means all of the above people (and
> more) are on that list and hence have the best chance to see and
> review the backport request.
> 
> > Ok, but for this specific patch, did I do something wrong in taking it?
> 
> No, you didn't do anything wrong, Greg. Stuff went wrong on the XFS
> side of the fence.
> 
> > I guess I'll just let you send me xfs patches, is that ok with everyone
> > else? 
> 
> Sure, that would work, but only after the patches have been sent to
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx for review and testing and been acked. And, of
> course, the stable submission woul dalso need to have a
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx cc on it. ;)

Making sure that xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx is Cc'd on -stable patches seems reasonable to
me.  No objection here, Dave.

-Ben

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