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 q81N9OfM194838 for ; Sat, 1 Sep 2012 18:09:24 -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 keLruYvTxQcBYPoc (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 01 Sep 2012 16:10:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 19:10:19 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/102]: xfs: 3.0.x stable kernel update Message-ID: <20120901231019.GC6896@infradead.org> References: <1345698180-13612-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1345698180-13612-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> 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: xfs@oss.sgi.com I've done a brief look over the patches this week and while I can't spot anything wrong I'm defintively a bit concerned about the amount of churn for a long term stable series. A lot of this does not seem to fit the strict -stable criteria, and given that I've not really seen any major issues with the current 3.0-stable codebase I'm wondering what the guranteed gain vs the status quo is. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs