From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from a.ns.miles-group.at ([95.130.255.143] helo=radon.swed.at) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1Y9hvE-0002Re-5s for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2015 22:20:48 +0000 Message-ID: <54B05428.60303@nod.at> Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 23:20:24 +0100 From: Richard Weinberger MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ezequiel Garcia , dedekind1@gmail.com Subject: Re: Fastmap update v2 (pile 1) References: <1416835236-25185-1-git-send-email-richard@nod.at> <54B04A50.8040307@vanguardiasur.com.ar> <54B04E65.60306@nod.at> <54B051B3.3050308@vanguardiasur.com.ar> In-Reply-To: <54B051B3.3050308@vanguardiasur.com.ar> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Am 09.01.2015 um 23:09 schrieb Ezequiel Garcia: >> All of Pile1, 2, 3 and 4. :-) >> One or tow patches are preparations for the real fix but obviously you'll need them >> too. >> The rest are enhancements and cleanups. > > What do you mean by "the rest"? Pile 5, 6, and 7. >> As I wrote before I've structured the patch set in a way to make backporting easy. >> >>> For bugfixes, having a detailed explanation of the problem the commit is >>> meant to fix would be better as well. >> >> Okay, I'll add the horror stories to these patches. >> > > I know it's a real pain, but if you can add a Fixes: tag, it would > certainly help Artem track down the bug. The good thing is that you get > the -stable hassle for free. We cannot tag these as stable, first I have to inject old fastamp fixes into -stable. Two years ago Artem and I decided that fastmap as experimental feature does not need -stable backports. It turned out that this was horrible wrong and stupid. >>> This patchset seems to have stalled, so perhaps having this information >>> would help Artem to pick the ones that you point as fixes, before we >>> miss another cycle. >> >> The question is, shall I wait for Artem or resend again? > > Hm, well, given we are just a handful of developers, and we are all time > constrained, maybe we could focus on the first two piles for now: > > Pile 1, November 24, https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/24/324 > Pile 2, November 30, https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/30/50 Hmm, I'm not sure whether it is a good idea to resend Pile1 and Pile2. I've currently around 50 patches on linux-mtd floating around (nett, without resends). I fear it will just increase the mess we already have. I really would like to hear what Artems plans are. Actually I resent and split up the first series upon his request. Thanks, //richard