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 qB5LgjNZ060238 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 15:42:45 -0600 Received: from ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.141]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id UnmcxvMbPA0rD6I3 for ; Wed, 05 Dec 2012 13:45:08 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 08:45:05 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [3.0-stable PATCH 00/36] Proposed 3.0-stable bug patches Message-ID: <20121205214505.GG29399@dastard> References: <20121203144208.143464631@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121203144208.143464631@sgi.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: Mark Tinguely Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com 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. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs