On Wed, Dec 11 2013 at 9:14pm -0500, Paul B. Henson <henson@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > From: Mike Snitzer [mailto:snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 7:07 AM > > > > 3.10 is actively maintained by gregkh as a "longterm" stable kernel so > > all relevant upstream commits should make their way into that tree: > > Right, but as dm-cache changes over time, with new features or other major > changes being made relative to the version shipped in 3.10, presumably some > bug fixes that might get committed to mainline would not apply cleanly to > 3.10 without some potentially non-negligible backporting effort? I don't > think gregkh does that himself? So if there was a major bug fix that ideally > would go back to LTS but couldn't be simply cherry picked, one of the > dm-cache devs would need to submit a separate commit for 3.10? Or perhaps I > misunderstand the process. We sometimes cater to the quirks of a specific stable release's codebase: http://www.redhat.com/archives/dm-devel/2013-December/msg00018.html Or we add notes to stable for guidance on how to resolve small differences that'd prevent a clean backport (see bottom of patch header): http://www.redhat.com/archives/dm-devel/2013-November/msg00200.html But in general it is the task of other distro vendors to backport stable fixes to their products. -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
