Re: [PATCH v1] exfat: bail prematurely from exfat_extend_valid_size() upon fatal signal

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Mon, Jul 13, 2026 at 04:55:34PM +0900, David Timber wrote:
> GKH,

Please don't top-post.

> Just a quick question: the
> handbook(Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst) really insists
> on putting an upstream commit, but this is an interesting issue that
> goes away with the iomap patchset set for release in v7.2. There isn't
> really an upstream that explicitly fixes it. I don't think it falls
> under any of Options 1, 2 or 3. Should I just remove that line?

If this is not a problem in Linus's tree, and this needs to be fixed in
a stable kernel, you need to document it really really really well why
we can't just take the same commits that are in Linus's tree for the
issue.

And even then I'll push back hard for why this is needed.  Be warned :)

> Also, in the last patch I submitted to you(SEEK_DATA/SEEK_HOLE on
> /dev/null), you were against the idea of using switch...case for
> inaction rather than action on a value. If you ACK, should I just use an
> if statement like so?
> 
> + if (ret < 0 && ret != -ENOSPC && ret != -EINTR)  {

I have no context here at all, sorry.  I'm not a exfat developer, and I
get 1000+ emails a day...

thanks,

greg k-h