From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id qAN7XU0u041525 for ; Fri, 23 Nov 2012 01:33:30 -0600 Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by cuda.sgi.com with SMTP id LY6x2MQ2xDr1ubM3 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 23:35:41 -0800 (PST) From: Peter =?iso-8859-1?q?H=FCwe?= Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: fix broken error handling in xfs_vm_writepage Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 08:44:22 +0100 References: <1353625410-1413-1-git-send-email-peterhuewe@gmx.de> <20121123010123.GD18889@devil.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20121123010123.GD18889@devil.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <201211230844.22438.PeterHuewe@gmx.de> 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: Ben Myers , stable@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com Hi Dave, Am Freitag, 23. November 2012, 02:01:23 schrieb Dave Chinner: > Any particular reason you picked this patch for a backport and not > many of the other fixes that went into the 3.7 series? Mainly two reasons: time and before spending many hours trying to 'backport' all this stuff, I first wanted to see what the response would be like in general. I'm still new to the stable kernel business, so I already expected that there will be some learning curve ;) Maybe I should add a "Learners Sticker" to my first xx stable related messages :P So I really appreciate your feedback. > > As it is, this problem is not that easy to hit, and I'm wary of > backporting changes to the io completion/Io submission error > handling paths to stable kernels without wider testing of the fix > (i.e. release of 3.7 and then a couple of weeks of people using it). > That's the reason why I didn't put a cc to the stable kernel on the > commit in the first place. > > Sometimes there's good reason for being cautious about > backporting fixes to stable kernels - if the problem is not being > reported by users then letting the fixes get out into the real world > for a while before backporting them to the stable kernels is the > right approach. Stable kernels are supposed to be stable, and as > such we want to be certain that changes are not going to have > unintneded consequences and then have to rush more fixes back to the > stable kernels because we broke them.... As stated in the other mail, I was a bit too eager here as well ;) We should probably wait with the inclusion - so sorry for the noise. Thanks, PeterH _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs