Re: [3.0-stable PATCH 00/36] Proposed 3.0-stable bug patches

Mark Tinguely
2012-12-06T17:25:00Z

On 12/05/12 15:45, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 05:42:08PM -0600, Mark Tinguely wrote:
>> Here a collection of bug fixes for 3.0-stable. Many of these patches
>> were also selected by Dave Chinner as possible 3.0-stable patches:
>> http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2012-08/msg00255.html
>>
>> I chose only bug fixes and kept the changes to a minimum.
>>
>> Patch 21/22 are required for the bug fix in patch 23 but they are
>> important changes in their own right.
>
> So I'll ask the same question that Christoph asked me: If nobody is
> reporting problems on 3.0.x, why do this and risk regression and
> fallout that requires fixing?
>
> FWIW, what testing have you done?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.

Do you mean?

http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2012-09/msg00002.html

I read that message as a concern that your original Linux 3.0-stable
patch series contained some items that did not meet the -stable
criteria.

As for adding patches to 3.0-stable. I believed then and now that
proactively suggesting bug fixes into 3.0-stable is a good thing
because it is the long term stable branch.

A few days after Christoph's email, I put my "Reviewed-by:" on your
series.

http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2012-09/msg00167.html

As for testing, the whole series is spun on xfstests loops for days on
x86_32 and x86_64 boxes, just like we test a top of tree patch series.

--Mark.