From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Theodore Ts'o Subject: Re: ext4: fix metadata checksum calculation for the superblock Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 21:50:15 -0400 Message-ID: <20121101015015.GA28919@thunk.org> References: <20121008024126.GC468@thunk.org> <20121101010521.893.qmail@science.horizon.com> <20121101011312.GG19591@blackbox.djwong.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: George Spelvin , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, tm@tao.ma To: "Darrick J. Wong" Return-path: Received: from li9-11.members.linode.com ([67.18.176.11]:58724 "EHLO imap.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756572Ab2KABuV (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Oct 2012 21:50:21 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121101011312.GG19591@blackbox.djwong.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 06:13:12PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > Author: Theodore Ts'o > > Date: Sun Oct 7 22:18:56 2012 -0400 > > Subject: ext4: fix metadata checksum calculation for the superblock This one was cc'ed to stable@vger.kernel.org. But when you said "I notice, that neither of thse have made it into 2.6.5", I assume you meant 3.5? The last 3.5 kernel is 3.5.7, and Greg K-H isn't backporting fixes to 3.5.x any more. (See http://www.kernel.org to see which kernels are marked "EOL"; those are the ones which are no longer getting updates.) So that means it should eventually make it to the 3.4.x and 3.6.x kernels. > > 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 I missed this one because the subject line didn't have [PATCH] in it. (Darrick, it really helps if you use git format-patch / git send-email; you can use a message-id of the message you're replying to in the mail thread to chain the message to the thread.) I would have eventually found it in patchwork, but even in patchwork the listing would have had a potentially misleading subject line, since it grabs the patch title from the subject line of the e-mail. > 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) It isn't in 3.7-rc3 because I didn't see it before I sent the pull request to Linus.... At this point I'll just include it in the patches to be sent to Linus at the next merge window, mainly because I don't have the time to run a separate regression test run just for this patch, and it's only a cosmetic issue, right? - Ted