On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 04:43:37PM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote:
> On 08/28/13 16:31, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 04:07:12PM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote:
> >>On 08/28/13 16:02, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >>>On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 03:49:30PM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote:
> >>>>On 08/28/13 06:22, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >>>>>From: Dave Chinner<dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>Looks good. Nice to get into Linux 3.12 and possibly back to stable.
> >>>Why stable? It's v5 only code, and everyon knows that is still in
> >>>the experimental stage....
> >That doesn't answer my question. You had to have some reason for
> >suggesting a possible stable backport for this code after reviewing
> >it, and I'm interested to know what it was...
> No thought that it would be nice to get it into Linux 3.12 and if
> Brian or anyone wants to review it, then it needs to be done soon.
> my "yep" was a terse agreeing with your point.
> Yep, this problem has been around forever.
> Yep, this problem was found/confirmed by your verifier.
> Yep, this problem can only be fixed this way in superblock v5.
> Yep, I had blinders on and was not thinking this to experimental code
> so it does not matter to push it back.
Ok, all good then. :)
Thanks for explaining in more detail, Mark.