From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
Cc: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@sgi.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
stable@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [3.0-stable PATCH 00/36] Proposed 3.0-stable bug patches
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 07:06:56 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121208120656.GA8780@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121207211536.GW27055@sgi.com>
On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 03:15:36PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> > > >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?
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > I read it as "why change something that no-one is reporting bugs
> > for?".
>
> I guess we could all stop putting words in his mouth and let him speak for
> himself. Christoph (cc'd), would you please clarify your position?
Well, both of the above applies. A lot of the patches are defintively
above the normal -stable criteria. If we have a reall good reason we
might be able to bend the criteria, but I'd really love to see
justificaton for that, preferably in form of user reports of grave
issues.
> Stable folk (cc'd Greg), what is your disposition with regard to proposing
> patches for -stable proactively? Do we really need to have a bug report from a
> 3.0-stable user for every bug we propose for 3.0-stable?
I don't think we'll need any report for things that are
a) obvious lingering big problems
and have
b) non-invasive fixes
occasionally just one of the criteria should be enough.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-12-08 12:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-12-03 23:42 [3.0-stable PATCH 00/36] Proposed 3.0-stable bug patches Mark Tinguely
2012-12-03 23:42 ` [3.0-stable PATCH 01/36] xfs: fix possible overflow in xfs_ioc_trim() Mark Tinguely
2012-12-03 23:42 ` [3.0-stable PATCH 02/36] xfs: fix allocation length overflow in xfs_bmapi_write() Mark Tinguely
2012-12-03 23:42 ` [3.0-stable PATCH 03/36] xfs: mark the xfssyncd workqueue as non-reentrant Mark Tinguely
2012-12-03 23:42 ` [3.0-stable PATCH 04/36] xfs: xfs_trans_add_item() - dont assign in ASSERT() when compare is intended Mark Tinguely
2012-12-03 23:42 ` [3.0-stable PATCH 05/36] xfs: only take the ILOCK in xfs_reclaim_inode() Mark Tinguely
2012-12-03 23:42 ` [3.0-stable PATCH 06/36] xfs: fallback to vmalloc for large buffers in xfs_attrmulti_attr_get Mark Tinguely
2012-12-03 23:42 ` [3.0-stable PATCH 07/36] xfs: fallback to vmalloc for large buffers in xfs_getbmap Mark Tinguely
2012-12-03 23:42 ` [3.0-stable PATCH 08/36] xfs: fix deadlock in xfs_rtfree_extent Mark Tinguely
2012-12-03 23:42 ` [3.0-stable PATCH 09/36] xfs: Fix open flag handling in open_by_handle code Mark Tinguely
2012-12-03 23:42 ` [3.0-stable PATCH 10/36] xfs: Account log unmount transaction correctly Mark Tinguely
2012-12-03 23:42 ` [3.0-stable PATCH 11/36] xfs: fix fstrim offset calculations Mark Tinguely
2012-12-03 23:42 ` [3.0-stable PATCH 12/36] xfs: dont fill statvfs with project quota for a directory Mark Tinguely
2012-12-03 23:42 ` [3.0-stable PATCH 13/36] xfs: Ensure inode reclaim can run during quotacheck Mark Tinguely
2012-12-03 23:42 ` [3.0-stable PATCH 14/36] xfs: use shared ilock mode for direct IO writes by default Mark Tinguely
2012-12-03 23:42 ` [3.0-stable PATCH 15/36] xfs: punch all delalloc blocks beyond EOF on write failure Mark Tinguely
2012-12-03 23:42 ` [3.0-stable PATCH 16/36] xfs: page type check in writeback only checks last buffer Mark Tinguely
2012-12-03 23:42 ` [3.0-stable PATCH 17/36] xfs: punch new delalloc blocks out of failed writes inside EOF Mark Tinguely
2012-12-03 23:42 ` [3.0-stable PATCH 18/36] xfs: dont assert on delalloc regions beyond EOF Mark Tinguely
2012-12-03 23:42 ` [3.0-stable PATCH 19/36] xfs: limit specualtive delalloc to maxioffset Mark Tinguely
2012-12-03 23:42 ` [3.0-stable PATCH 20/36] xfs: Use preallocation for inodes with extsz hints Mark Tinguely
2012-12-03 23:42 ` [3.0-stable PATCH 21/36] xfs: Dont allocate new buffers on every call to _xfs_buf_find Mark Tinguely
2012-12-03 23:42 ` [3.0-stable PATCH 22/36] xfs: clean up buffer allocation Mark Tinguely
2012-12-03 23:42 ` [3.0-stable PATCH 23/36] xfs: fix buffer lookup race on allocation failure Mark Tinguely
2012-12-03 23:42 ` [3.0-stable PATCH 24/36] xfs: use iolock on XFS_IOC_ALLOCSP calls Mark Tinguely
2012-12-03 23:42 ` [3.0-stable PATCH 25/36] xfs: Properly exclude IO type flags from buffer flags Mark Tinguely
2012-12-03 23:42 ` [3.0-stable PATCH 26/36] xfs: flush outstanding buffers on log mount failure Mark Tinguely
2012-12-03 23:42 ` [3.0-stable PATCH 27/36] xfs: protect xfs_sync_worker with s_umount semaphore Mark Tinguely
2012-12-03 23:42 ` [3.0-stable PATCH 28/36] xfs: fix memory reclaim deadlock on agi buffer Mark Tinguely
2012-12-03 23:42 ` [3.0-stable PATCH 29/36] xfs: xfs_vm_writepage clear iomap_valid when Mark Tinguely
2012-12-03 23:42 ` [3.0-stable PATCH 30/36] xfs: fix allocbt cursor leak in xfs_alloc_ag_vextent_near Mark Tinguely
2012-12-03 23:42 ` [3.0-stable PATCH 31/36] xfs: shutdown xfs_sync_worker before the log Mark Tinguely
2012-12-03 23:42 ` [3.0-stable PATCH 32/36] xfs: really fix the cursor leak in xfs_alloc_ag_vextent_near Mark Tinguely
2012-12-03 23:42 ` [3.0-stable PATCH 33/36] xfs: check for stale inode before acquiring iflock on push Mark Tinguely
2012-12-03 23:42 ` [3.0-stable PATCH 34/36] xfs: stop the sync worker before xfs_unmountfs Mark Tinguely
2012-12-03 23:42 ` [3.0-stable PATCH 35/36] xfs: zero allocation_args on the kernel stack Mark Tinguely
2012-12-03 23:42 ` [3.0-stable PATCH 36/36] xfs: only update the last_sync_lsn when a transaction completes Mark Tinguely
2012-12-04 21:44 ` [3.0-stable PATCH 00/36] Proposed 3.0-stable bug patches Ben Myers
2012-12-05 21:45 ` Dave Chinner
2012-12-06 17:27 ` Mark Tinguely
2012-12-07 10:06 ` Dave Chinner
2012-12-07 21:15 ` Ben Myers
2012-12-08 12:06 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2012-12-08 19:12 ` Greg KH
2012-12-10 0:24 ` Dave Chinner
2012-12-10 22:03 ` Ben Myers
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20121208120656.GA8780@infradead.org \
--to=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=bpm@sgi.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tinguely@sgi.com \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox