On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 06:13:12PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > Author: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> > > Date: Sun Oct 7 22:18:56 2012 -0400 > > Subject: ext4: fix metadata checksum calculation for the superblock This one was cc'ed to stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. But when you said "I notice, that neither of thse have made it into 2.6.5", I assume you meant 3.5? The last 3.5 kernel is 3.5.7, and Greg K-H isn't backporting fixes to 3.5.x any more. (See http://www.kernel.org to see which kernels are marked "EOL"; those are the ones which are no longer getting updates.) So that means it should eventually make it to the 3.4.x and 3.6.x kernels. > > Author: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Wed Oct 17 12:51:30 2012 -0700 > > Subject: ext4: Don't verify checksums of dx non-leaf nodes during fallback linear scan I missed this one because the subject line didn't have [PATCH] in it. (Darrick, it really helps if you use git format-patch / git send-email; you can use a message-id of the message you're replying to in the mail thread to chain the message to the thread.) I would have eventually found it in patchwork, but even in patchwork the listing would have had a potentially misleading subject line, since it grabs the patch title from the subject line of the e-mail. > <shrug> I was wondering too, but I figured Ted was probably busy dealing with > the corruption bug and such. > > (Which itself doesn't seem to be in 3.6.x yet) It isn't in 3.7-rc3 because I didn't see it before I sent the pull request to Linus.... At this point I'll just include it in the patches to be sent to Linus at the next merge window, mainly because I don't have the time to run a separate regression test run just for this patch, and it's only a cosmetic issue, right? - 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
