RFC: dm patches for 2.6.16

RFC: dm patches for 2.6.16

[Adrian Bunk]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 776 bytes --]

The following attached patches seem to make sense for 2.6.16:

Added in 2.6.17.11 and 2.6.18:
dm: BUG/OOPS fix

Added in 2.6.17.12 and 2.6.18:
dm snapshot: unify chunk_size
dm: add module ref counting
dm: mirror sector offset fix
dm: Fix deadlock under high i/o load in raid1 setup.

Added in 2.6.19:
dm snapshot: fix metadata writing when suspending


For an easier review, I've attached the patches.

Do these patches look OK for 2.6.16, or should I not apply some or all?

Are there any critical patches I missed?

TIA
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed


[-- Attachment #2: dm-bug-oops-fix.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 0 bytes --]



[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 0 bytes --]

Re: RFC: dm patches for 2.6.16

[Alasdair G Kergon]

On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 04:24:44AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> The following attached patches seem to make sense for 2.6.16:
> 
> Added in 2.6.17.11 and 2.6.18:
> dm: BUG/OOPS fix
> 
> Added in 2.6.17.12 and 2.6.18:
> dm snapshot: unify chunk_size
> dm: add module ref counting
> dm: mirror sector offset fix
> dm: Fix deadlock under high i/o load in raid1 setup.
> 
> Added in 2.6.19:
> dm snapshot: fix metadata writing when suspending
> 
> Do these patches look OK for 2.6.16, 

Yes.

> Are there any critical patches I missed?
 
The general rule for patches I send to linux-kernel is that any patch with
'fix' in the title is a candidate for stable trees (together with any
earlier patches they depend upon).

Alasdair
-- 
agk@redhat.com

Re: RFC: dm patches for 2.6.16

[Adrian Bunk]

On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 08:25:59PM +0000, Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 04:24:44AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > The following attached patches seem to make sense for 2.6.16:
> > 
> > Added in 2.6.17.11 and 2.6.18:
> > dm: BUG/OOPS fix
> > 
> > Added in 2.6.17.12 and 2.6.18:
> > dm snapshot: unify chunk_size
> > dm: add module ref counting
> > dm: mirror sector offset fix
> > dm: Fix deadlock under high i/o load in raid1 setup.
> > 
> > Added in 2.6.19:
> > dm snapshot: fix metadata writing when suspending
> > 
> > Do these patches look OK for 2.6.16, 
> 
> Yes.

Thanks, I've applied them.

> > Are there any critical patches I missed?
>  
> The general rule for patches I send to linux-kernel is that any patch with
> 'fix' in the title is a candidate for stable trees (together with any
> earlier patches they depend upon).

I do _sometimes_ find patches for 2.6.16 on linux-kernel.
I'm regularly going through the patches that have been applied to 
-stable.

AFAIK Greg and Chris only apply patches to -stable that were explicitely 
sent to stable@kernel.org.

It would therefore be good, if you could send such patches explicitely 
to stable@kernel.org.

> Alasdair

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed