From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q645sOWa170863 for ; Wed, 4 Jul 2012 00:54:25 -0500 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (173-166-109-252-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.166.109.252]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id eQU5KEsgoYSx8Hwu (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 03 Jul 2012 22:54:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 01:54:19 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: Backporting the concurrent direct IO write fix to 3.4 Message-ID: <20120704055419.GA27500@infradead.org> References: <4FF2F41F.5000504@gmail.com> <20120703160949.GD855@infradead.org> <20120703231122.GB19223@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120703231122.GB19223@dastard> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com, Kerin Millar On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 09:11:22AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > Is it? So we will have long term support kernels for 3.0.x, 3.2.x > and now 3.4.x? 3.0.x is the long term stable kernel I'm targetting > for backports and there's no way I can really handle more than > that... I remember Greg announced 3.4 to be long term in addition to 3.0 recently. 3.2 only is the Debian release kernel, for which the maintainers offered to maintain it as a formal stable release on kernel.org And yes, it's getting not only confusing but also way to much work for subsystem maintainers. I'm still happy to backport fixes to 3.0, but for more invasive work it's getting a bit too old now. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs