From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754873Ab2JBQJ0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2012 12:09:26 -0400 Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:59948 "EHLO out1-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754834Ab2JBQJZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2012 12:09:25 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: fUto9zTiBrYAEqHuas6+nTjK0Q54DQogPpmeVc7c7cBJ 1349194164 Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 09:09:23 -0700 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: NeilBrown Cc: Ben Hutchings , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Subject: Re: [ 094/127] md: make sure metadata is updated when spares are activated or removed. Message-ID: <20121002160923.GA22726@kroah.com> References: <20120928203045.835238916@linuxfoundation.org> <20120928203056.912250649@linuxfoundation.org> <1348872664.6858.7.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk> <20120928235745.GA11630@kroah.com> <20121002125200.6bf40ac7@notabene.brown> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121002125200.6bf40ac7@notabene.brown> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 12:52:00PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 16:57:45 -0700 Greg Kroah-Hartman > wrote: > > > On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 12:51:04AM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 13:34 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > 3.0-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. > > > > > > > > ------------------ > > > > > > > > From: NeilBrown > > > > > > > > commit 6dafab6b1383e912cd252fa809570b484eb6e0dc upstream. > > > [...] > > > > This is suitable for -stable as out-of-data metadata could lead > > > > to data corruption. > > > > This is only relevant for 3.3 and later 9when 'replacement' as > > > > introduced. > > > [...] > > > > > > Assuming Neil hasn't changed his mind about this, it should therefore > > > not be applied to 3.0. > > > > Neil, is this true? > > > > greg k-h > > Yes it is true - my bad. > > I should have realised that when you pointed out that the backport wasn't > clean. > The patch won't hurt 3.0, but it isn't necessary at all, so best leave it out. Thanks for letting us know, I've now dropped this. greg k-h