From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman Subject: Re: [PATCH] sd: Optimal I/O size is in bytes, not sectors Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 00:16:12 -0800 Message-ID: <20160122081612.GA13277@kroah.com> References: <1453305683-22424-1-git-send-email-martin.petersen@oracle.com> <1453306765.2341.11.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1453308449.2341.22.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.27]:50866 "EHLO out3-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751378AbcAVIQP (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jan 2016 03:16:15 -0500 Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78A3E210C0 for ; Fri, 22 Jan 2016 03:16:14 -0500 (EST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1453308449.2341.22.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: "Martin K. Petersen" , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, borntraeger@de.ibm.com On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 08:47:29AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > On Wed, 2016-01-20 at 11:40 -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > > > > > > > "James" == James Bottomley < > > > > > > > James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> writes: > > > > James> We should mark the commit causing the problems, which went > > into > > James> 4.4 if I remember correctly: > > > > James> Fixes: ca369d51b3e1649be4a72addd6d6a168cfb3f537 Cc: > > James> stable@vger.kernel.org # 4.4+ Reviewed-by: James E.J. > > Bottomley > > James> > > > > I'll add the tags. The reason I didn't explicitly put 4.4+ is that > > the original commit has made its way quite far in various stable > > trees by now. > > It has? It wasn't tagged for stable. However, if it got applied to > stable trees, then we should certainly backport further. I sort of > hope the stable process uses the Fixes: tag to decide when to backport > anyway, since the stable commit contains the original upstream sha256, > they can certainly identify it. > > Greg, are we OK not to bother with qualifying the cc: stable tag if we > have a Fixes tag, or do you still want to see both? Perhaps an > addition to stable_kernel_rules.txt mentioning Fixes: might be useful > as well. I want to see a stable tag if you know it is relevant. I do, when I have the time, dig through the fixes: tags to see if they should also be applied, but I don't always guarantee that I will get to them at all, so don't count on that as a way to get a patch into a stable release. thanks, greg k-h