Re: [PATCH 3.12 000/181] 3.12.24-stable review

Dave Chinner
2014-07-03T02:36:22Z

On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 10:09:34AM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 07/02/2014 01:53 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 01:51:22PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> >> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.12.24 release.
> >> There are 181 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> >> to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> >> let me know.
> > .....
> >> Dave Chinner (3):
> >> xfs: prevent deadlock trying to cover an active log
> >> xfs: prevent stack overflows from page cache allocation
> >> xfs: xfs_remove deadlocks due to inverted AGF vs AGI lock ordering
> >
> > None of the XFS patches you're backporting were marked for stable.
> > What criteria did you choose them by, and how are you testing the
> > result?
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> these patches are in SUSE's enterprise linux based on 3.12. So I picked
> them from there. Testing is covered by our QA, but of course, with some
> additional patches on the top of them which do not satisfy the stable
> rules (because they add features).
>
> > Randomly picked XFS backports have a nasty habit of causing
> > regressions, and it's always me that is on the pointy end of having
> > to triage problems users report with those backports...
>
> Despite the patches fix real problems, if you prefer me not to take such
> patches, I will drop them and will apply no more.

I don't mind as long as I know they are being testing properly. It
sounds like you've already got that in hand (via SuSE QA), so I
don't have any problems with including them.

I just wanted to understand the process because it seemed a little
unusual for a stable kernel. ;)

Cheers,

Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com