From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gabriel de Perthuis Subject: Re: bcache oops in bch_insert_data with the latest stables fixes (3.10.15) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 00:48:29 +0200 Message-ID: <52548BBD.9060601@gmail.com> References: <52513DBD.80005@excellency.fr> <525186E3.4000905@gmail.com> <525483A4.5020607@gmail.com> <1381271982.70536.YahooMailNeo@web181505.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1381271982.70536.YahooMailNeo-XYahOdtEMNnuQS8rMknbopOW+3bF1jUfVpNB7YpNyf8@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-bcache-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: matthew patton Cc: "linux-bcache-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" List-Id: linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org Le mer. 09 oct. 2013 00:39:42 CEST, matthew patton a =C3=A9crit : > I'm confused as to what tree is actually safe to use. When these and > like messages go out are all of the 3.10, 3.11, 3.12 etc trees > updated to kill the bad code? There seems to be a lot of churn and as > a user I'm not sure what code-base to grab that has the > recent/obscure bugs fixed, and which are time-bombs. >=20 > Do all of the 3.10.x Linux kernel sources work with the bcache > 3.10-stable git branch? Does 3.10-stable have *ALL* of the recent bug > fixes included? If not, why not? Same for 3.11 and friends. >=20 > A little guidance please? 3.11.4 minus the patch I mentioned is fine in my experience; I've been running it for a while along with other people (through the bcache-for-3.11 branch). I'm not sure what corruption that patch was meant to prevent; I haven't encountered it as far as I know.