>On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 12:41:02AM +0400, Vasiliy Tolstov wrote: >> 2013/10/14 Gabriel de Perthuis <g2p.code@xxxxxxxxx>: >> > That's the bug mentioned here: >> > http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.bcache.devel/2113 >> > http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.bcache.devel/2109 >> > http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.bcache.devel/2108 >> > >> > It's a regression that stops writeback and made 3.11.4. >> > The fix is in 3.12-rc5 and will be in 3.11.5. >> >> >> does branche http://evilpiepirate.org/git/linux-bcache.git/log/?h=bcache-for-3.11 >> has all fixes and stable for use? > >No - but 3.11.5 is out and has the fix color me miffed/mystified. Why should we be chasing Linux kernel releases to get fixed code? Shouldn't the GIT/tarball hosted at the bcache project HQ be !!CONSTANTLY!! up to date with appropriate fixes? Linux kernels depend on all kinds of people and is an "unreliable" means to get fully fixed code (eg. that last minute fix might not have made the cutoff) Shouldn't the project's code repository have the utmost priority? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bcache" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
