From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (woodpecker.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBAAE12EBE3 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2024 04:55:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=140.211.166.183 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1718340952; cv=none; b=O7aGVP7tRcmTelVtMUe4k/w4EXdRmqDqidSav4EXBWd9HD/8CEA2vh3QhTbosLZTV6SS5PcO8vQ0eBL2mHaBgihUG0KocsMEa82qmoTWsVy9dyxrCm5rMsmm4FBjClR2+7HqEsTezGTVz1PDTLrpEz3Lr2gwV6mG0pFP/DvIvAM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1718340952; c=relaxed/simple; bh=oOwY1Y92zGhJZ9+ELR0lm3dwy7dn2vwijTTez08xRQU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=r6GsBrpgVOrAjzIkYCLeI1BNTH4ktvUcUq5imxI7NKfnKxbHn61/JlYB8RdYadKKk+4QjEZWLlnsXx6bKxSnyRs3Q5X3LdMctvpH8k36Qr5n4l0lldsNGitYAalFuoQ+2eJbtK+15XfmMqIfqcAdCC1VdJdtLSvzIeyjnxZSuN4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gentoo.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gentoo.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=140.211.166.183 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gentoo.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gentoo.org From: Sam James To: leah.rumancik@gmail.com Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org, Miaohe Lin Subject: Re: [PATCH 6.6] backport: fix 6.6 backport of changes to fork In-Reply-To: Organization: Gentoo Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 05:55:46 +0100 Message-ID: <87zfro3yy5.fsf@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Is it worth reverting the original bad backport for now, given it causes xfstests failures? --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iOUEARYKAI0WIQQlpruI3Zt2TGtVQcJzhAn1IN+RkAUCZmvNUl8UgAAAAAAuAChp c3N1ZXItZnByQG5vdGF0aW9ucy5vcGVucGdwLmZpZnRoaG9yc2VtYW4ubmV0MjVB NkJCODhERDlCNzY0QzZCNTU0MUMyNzM4NDA5RjUyMERGOTE5MA8cc2FtQGdlbnRv by5vcmcACgkQc4QJ9SDfkZDLiAD/fOCmjubkbcF9mfJM7WpsLWS0OejYvKtJx8hs SxqMcVwBAMVPjec1Q3vRga686l5CUdP4DxiKNBKKxBdInaE/bv4F =DjH1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--