On Sat, 29 Mar 2014, Ilya Dryomov wrote: > On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Sage Weil <sage@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, 29 Mar 2014, Ilya Dryomov wrote: > >> On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 3:46 AM, Alex Elder <elder@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > On 03/28/2014 07:41 PM, Sage Weil wrote: > >> >> Hi Alex, Ilya, > >> >> > >> >> I've added this and the previous patch to a for-linus branch to send to > >> >> Linux for 3.14. The net of the two patches is simply removing the assert, > >> >> however... the first changes several lines that then get changed back. > >> >> Should we squash them? > >> > > >> > In my opinion, yes. Ilya's movement of the assert within > >> > the spinlock was solving one problem, but ultimately that > >> > assertion should go away. > >> > >> Sage, the way you squashed it we lost Alex's authorship and ended up > >> with his Signed-off-by, my Reviewed-by and me as an Author. Since you > >> haven't pulled it into kernel.org yet, I did > >> > >> git commit --amend --author='Alex Elder <elder@xxxxxxxxxx>' > >> > >> on for-linus to restore justice ;) > > > > Thanks! I'm noticing now that the commit description doesn't make much > > sense, though, since it is talking about the conditions after the first > > patch.. might just send the originals, unless Alex wants to rewrite it. > > I don't see it that way. The conditions it is talking about are true > even w/o the first patch, it's just the first patch made it a lot > easier to hit the bug. Ah, you're right, the last part is fine. It's just the failed assertion says == instead of >=; changed that. Look ok? sage -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
