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 qB8C4WmR029704 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2012 06:04:32 -0600 Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 07:06:56 -0500 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [3.0-stable PATCH 00/36] Proposed 3.0-stable bug patches Message-ID: <20121208120656.GA8780@infradead.org> References: <20121203144208.143464631@sgi.com> <20121205214505.GG29399@dastard> <50C0D57A.9000704@sgi.com> <20121207100646.GJ27172@dastard> <20121207211536.GW27055@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121207211536.GW27055@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: Ben Myers Cc: Mark Tinguely , Greg KH , stable@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, Christoph Hellwig 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