On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 08:43:42PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 06:47:14PM +0800, Wang shilong wrote: > > From: Wang Shilong <wangsl-fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > It will be better to have ENOMEM return rather than EIO,because > > the only reason that sb_getblk fails is allocation fails. > > > > <formletter> > > This is not the correct way to submit patches for inclusion in the > stable kernel tree. Please read Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt > for how to do this properly. > > </formletter> Did Wang Shilong bcc stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx? He didn't need to send this to linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (the linux-ext4 list is sufficient), but I didn't see anything which indicated he was trying to submit this for inclusion in the stable kernel tree. My personal opinion is this isn't an important enough patch to warrant going into stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, although I don't think it would do any harm or is really dangerous, so I wouldn't object strongly if it did. I did mark a similar change for ext4 as going to stable, but not because of the error code change; but rather because I also fixed a problem where an out-of-memory failure might result in the file system getting marked as containing errors (and thus might cause an unneeded fsck). Cheers, - 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
