Hey Ted, Good news! You are right! Taking the two commits as you suggested cleared our bug. Thank you very much for pointing that out. We may still be back-porting patches for a while until our internal tree catches up with 2.6.29 or 2.6.30. But we definitely will be much more careful in taking patches. Thanks, Xiang On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Theodore Tso <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 05:37:35PM -0800, Michael Rubin wrote: >> We know. Our qualifying process is not the most light weight and the >> kernel moves fast. Normally we take a snapshot and qualify it, trying >> to take upstream patches when we can and then also publishing bugs we >> find. The problem is that with ext4 still undergoing active dev we >> want to be able to keep our ext4 portion of the tree as up to date as >> possible. > > I understand, and it's not a burden to answer questions like this. I > was just pointing out the effort that it will likely take to backport > the percpu counter patches, since you will need to scan the your > sources and make sure the behavioural changes in percpu_counter_sum > isn't going to cause problems for you elsewhere, and that this sort of > thing is probably going to get harder as time goes by, not easier. I > know how painful it can be, since I've been having a hard time > backporting fixes to the 2.6.27 stable tree. > > The good news is that ext4 development is settling down, so if you > manage to take another snapshot around 2.6.29 or 2.6.30, I suspect > life will be much easier (at least as far as backporting patches for > ext4 is concerned.) > > Best regards, > > - Ted > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
