[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATH 0/9] xfs: fixes for 3.10-rc4

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATH 0/9] xfs: fixes for 3.10-rc4
From: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 14:45:21 -0500
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <51A65696.1050900@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1369636707-15150-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20130528175627.GZ20028@xxxxxxx> <20130528235424.GY29466@dastard> <20130529190122.GE19505@xxxxxxx> <51A65696.1050900@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Hey Eric,

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 02:27:18PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 5/29/13 2:01 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> > Hi Dave,
> > 
> > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 09:54:24AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> <giant snip>
> >> I'd much prefer that we don't have to add code to 3.11 to reject any
> >> CRC-enabled filesystem without any feature bits set because we don't
> >> support a broken remote attr format that was fixed weeks before 3.10
> >> released but was not allowed to be fixed in 3.10. That's just crazy
> >> from any release management perspective you care to look at it from.
> > 
> > So would I.
> >  
> >> Ben, if the problem is that you can't review all the fixes in a timely
> >> manner, then we can fix that. I'm sure that Mark, Eric and Brian can
> >> help review the code if this is the sticking point.
> > 
> > Reviews are always welcome...
> But it won't matter for the sake of this argument, sounds like?

Reviews will certainly help...

> > A worse outcome is that I pull in this code and something goes very
> > wrong for the thousands of users of 3.10 with existing non-crc XFS
> > filesystems.  A feature bit and some inconvenience for a few XFS
> > developers and testers is a safer choice.
> Your concern (rightly) seems to be stability for non-crc users, so:
> I'll review these patches with a special eye towards if/how they
> affect any non-crc codepaths.  If it's wholly contained in crc
> code, you can merge them without fear.  Sound like a deal?

...but my primary concern is the content of the patches.

If we can show that a given patch is relevant, of low risk to non-crc users,
and has been adequately tested, I'm game.


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