On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Ted Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:41:56AM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote: >> >> I'm concerned that we've reached -rc7, with Linus planning on 2.6.39 >> release next week, but Curt's fix above to the mblk_io corruption bug >> seems to have fallen through the cracks. > > It's in the ext4 master branch so it's queued to be pushed during the > next merge window, and then it would go into the 2.6.39.x stable > series. ÂSo it didn't fall through the cracks; it was just a question > of whether to push late in the rc series, or waiting until the merge > window and then backporting to 2.6.39 stable. ÂBasically I got the > patch in -rc5, and at that point, given that the vast majority of the > file systems are 4k blocksize on x86, and most Power and Itanic users > are using distribution kernels (and that's a very small number > anyway), I decided not to push it to Linus at that point. > > It's a judgement call; and I could have gone the other way; it was > very much a 49/51 sort of decision. Hmm. Well, thanks for the reply. I do disagree with your decision, and am surprised that you're still seeing it in the past tense. This is a corruption and a regression: prime material for a fix even at this stage. Admittedly, in my case the data was written correctly and only temporarily presented incorrectly; but in other tests that could then have got written back incorrectly. And admittedly, not many people outside of the large-page-size world are using blocksize less than pagesize. But even so.... Moral: cc Rafael's regression list next time? Hugh -- 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
