Re: nfsd (and lock) changes for 3.2

[Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@panasas.com>]

On 11/04/2011 09:04 AM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> Boaz points out that I forgot to add stable cc's to two commits:
> 
> 	48483bf23a568f3ef4cc7ad2c8f1a082f10ad0e7 "nfsd4: simplify recovery dir setting"
> 	6577aac01f00636c16cd583c30bd4dedf18475d5 "nfsd4: fix failure to
> 	end nfsd4 grace period"
> 
> which fix a regression introduced by
> ab1350b2b3c1dd2e465a6abdda608d8c44facfb8 "nfsd41: Deny new lock before
> RECLAIM_COMPLETE done" (first included in v3.1-rc1).
> 
> Included below for reference, but I assume simplest for you will be to
> cherry-pick the above two sha1's.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> --b.
> 

Bruce hi, thanks

Yesterday I hit this bug again. I rebased on Benny's tree which did not have them
for some reason. It's hunting me. ;-)

Just for Future reference, these patches were suppose to be submitted very early around
rc3 when we found them. This is what the -rcX are for, to test and fix what was broken
in the merge window.

Please forgive me I should have followed it through, but was too busy and forgot.

But in general you should always have an rc-fixes branch and bug fixes patches
should go there and not into the linux-next branch. And yes both branches should
be included in linux-next.

This way there is nothing to forget

Thanks
Boaz