Re: [PATCH net-next V7 0/4] Bundle fixes for Xen netfront / netback

[Stefan Bader <stefan.bader@canonical.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2794 bytes --]

On 03.02.2014 11:39, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-02-03 at 10:30 +0000, Wei Liu wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 11:23:25PM -0800, Matt Wilson wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 08:53:35PM +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 08:41:39PM +0100, David Miller wrote:
>>>>> From: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
>>>>> Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 13:20:39 +0100
>>>>>
>>>>>> This series is now rebased onto net-next.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We would also like to ask you to queue it for stable-ish tree. I can do the
>>>>>> backport if necessary.
>>>>>
>>>>> All applied, but this was a disaster.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, I misunderstood the workflow.
>>>>
>>>>> If you want bug fixes propagated into -stable you submit them to 'net'
>>>>> from the beginning.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no other method by which to do this.
>>>>>
>>>>> By merging all of these changes to net-next, you will now have to get
>>>>> them accepted again into 'net', and then (and only then) can you make
>>>>> a request for -stable inclusion.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Understood. Will submit them against 'net' later.
>>>
>>> Did this ever happen? Is 9ecd1a75 (xen-netfront: reduce gso_max_size
>>> to account for max TCP header) at all related to the "skb rides the
>>> rocket" related TX packet drops reported against 3.8.x kernels?
>>>
>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux-lts-raring/+bug/1195474
>>>
>>> It seems like there are still some outstanding bugs in various -stable
>>> releases.
>>>
>>
>> As far as I can remember Ian and I requested relavant patches be
>> backported in May, after these series settled in mainline for some time.
>>
>> <1369734465.3469.52.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
>>
>> These series was backported to 3.9.y-stable tree. 3.8.y didn't pick them
>> up.
> 
> The stable guys don't maintain every tree indefinitely, usually only for
> a couple of releases after the next mainline release or something (I
> suppose you can find the official policy online somewhere). Presumably
> these fixes came too late for the 3.8.y branch.
> 
> Longterm stable trees are an exception and get longer backports, I don't
> think 3.8 is one of those though.
> 
> If anyone wants further backports then they will need to speak to the
> Linux stable maintainers, although they should probably expect a "this
> stable tree is now closed" type response for 3.8.
> 
> Or perhaps the above link implies that Canonical are supporting their
> own LTS of Linux 3.8.y -- in which case the request should be made to
> whoever that maintainer is.
> 
> Ian.
> 
Yeah, it would be a Canonical maintained longterm tree. I am just checking to
verify which ones are missing the series. I will send out a request to pull them
in after that.

-Stefan


[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 901 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 126 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel