From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Darrick J. Wong" Subject: Re: ext4: fix metadata checksum calculation for the superblock Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 18:13:12 -0700 Message-ID: <20121101011312.GG19591@blackbox.djwong.org> References: <20121008024126.GC468@thunk.org> <20121101010521.893.qmail@science.horizon.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: tytso@mit.edu, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, tm@tao.ma To: George Spelvin Return-path: Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:17837 "EHLO aserp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756142Ab2KABNT (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Oct 2012 21:13:19 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121101010521.893.qmail@science.horizon.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 09:05:21PM -0400, George Spelvin wrote: > I'm currently running with two ext4 patches: > > Author: Theodore Ts'o > Date: Sun Oct 7 22:18:56 2012 -0400 > Subject: ext4: fix metadata checksum calculation for the superblock > > Author: Darrick J. Wong > Date: Wed Oct 17 12:51:30 2012 -0700 > Subject: ext4: Don't verify checksums of dx non-leaf nodes during fallback linear scan > > They appear to fix real problems. I notice, that neither of these have > made it into 2.6.5. Should they be sent to -stable at some point? > > I'm not trying to overrule your judgements on the matter, just ensure that > the omission is actually a conscious decision rather than an oversight. I was wondering too, but I figured Ted was probably busy dealing with the corruption bug and such. (Which itself doesn't seem to be in 3.6.x yet) I suppose it's a good sign that it's been more than a week and you haven't hit anything else... --D > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html