From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mimi Zohar Subject: Re: Reiserfs.c bug in 3.2-rc5 Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 13:45:11 -0500 Message-ID: <1325616312.2095.26.camel@falcor> References: <43556.213.228.140.150.1323560920.squirrel@webmail.decimal.pt> <20111213180707.GI11747@quack.suse.cz> <20120102115222.GA3626@quack.suse.cz> <20120103010826.GF3626@quack.suse.cz> <20120103123841.GA31457@quack.suse.cz> <1325604356.2095.23.camel@falcor> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: reiserfs-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Jan Kara , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, reiserfs-devel@vger.kernel.org, haiyangz@microsoft.com, hjanssen@microsoft.com, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , James Morris , Jorge Bastos , Mark Fasheh , Joel Becker On Tue, 2012-01-03 at 08:48 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > > Commit fb88c2b changed the security_old_inode_init_security() return > > code for S_PRIVATE inodes. As long as -EOPNOTSUPP is expected, probably > > should revert that as well. > > > > (I'm cc'ing the ocfs2 maintainers.) > > Jan, Joel? Can you confirm? I was planning on doing 3.2 today, but > maybe I can't, or maybe we need to punt this to be a stable patch. > > But maybe we can have quick testing and agreement? Does everybody > agree on both Honza's patch *and* revert of fb88c2b? Does the > EOPNOTSUPP return case match what we used to do? > > Linus > Just clarifying not all of commit fb88c2b, but only the security_old_inode_init_security() hunk. Mimi