On 05/06/2013 16:25, James Bottomley wrote:
On Mon, 2013-05-06 at 22:56 +0300, Ric Wheeler wrote:
On 05/06/2013 06:53 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-05-04 at 07:17 +0300, Ric Wheeler wrote:
>> On 05/02/2013 08:18 PM, Steve Dickson wrote:
>>> From: Steve Dickson <steved@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Here is an the next rlease of the label NFS patches
>>> ported to the linux-3.9 release
>>>
>>> The following changes were made from the previous release.
>>> (Note, only the server patch changed in this release)
>>>
>>> * Remove the buffer overflow in the allocation of labels.
>>>
>>> * Removed needless char * casting
>>>
>>> * Removed the -EMSGSIZE to nfs4err_badlabel errno mapping
>>> by changing the return value of nfsd4_label_alloc() to
>>> be a _be32 value.
>> It would be great to see this patch series land in time for 3.10
- seems like a
>> major feature that has had been held in development for years and
it does have a
>> very interested user base waiting for this to land.
>>
>> Are there any existing roadblocks to having this make it this
merge
>> window?
> You mean other than the one Bruce and Trond already mentioned and
which
> you presumably already read? i.e. it's a large feature whose final
> incarnation landed when the merge window was already open which by
> process should receive incubation in linux-next before being
merged.
>
> It is entirely within the gift of the maintainers to vary the
incubation
> requirements, but if they do and it comes back with a ton of
problems
> from the 0 day project or smatch or even a build failure that
would have
> been picked up by linux-next, they'll be at the wrong end of
Linus'
> flame thrower not you. So it is rather unfair to pressure the
> maintainers like this.
>
> Kernel processes exist for a reason and almost every maintainer
has the
> scars that remind them of this.
>
> James
>
>
Don't worry James - this one has had at least as much testing as the
average
SCSI driver update :)
This is was not meant as pressure, James Morris (not you) had
replied that his
patches are ready and he expected them to be pulled via the NFS
trees.
Yes, I know this ... Trond and Bruce both said definitely 3.11 and
probably 3.11 respectively, that's why I was surprised to see a 3.10
request.
This was meant to facilitate getting this multi-tree,
multi-maintainer series
ready to merge and make sure we aren't stuck each waiting for a
response from
the next person in the loop.
Note that this patch set has been in development for *years*, been
tested at
connectathon, tested by interested parties who promoted the earliest
versions of
the patches and tested by RHEL (of course, the series has evolved
over time).
That's good, but not sufficient. A large number of "well tested" big
patch sets have failed integration nastily when they were merged over
the years. That wasn't because they weren't actually tested, but
because as soon as they hit the tree, they caused side effects, or
people tried configurations the submitters hadn't or because they
tried
tests the submitters hadn't thought of. This is why we have an
integration process involving linux-next ... to try and find these
types
of problems *before* merger and that's why large features tend to
spend
at least a week in linux-next to try to find the issues.
To be fair I doubt you're going to see any new problems on top of what
Bruce has already caught. He has done the work to tweak all the knobs to
make sure config wise any LNFS features turned on or off don't break
NFSv4 both at compile and run-time. On top of that all the security
patches are self contained as LNFS is the only user. Finally based on
people's knee-jerk reaction to disable SELinux on most of their systems
I doubt you're going to get much more testing out of linux-next than
we've already done. We already have a wink and a nod from Casey that
SMACK has issues with Labeled NFS and that he has no objections to
fixing that problem later. All that said its still the maintainer's
decision to take it or not and I'd imagine backporting the patches to
3.10 from 3.11 wouldn't be a tremendous amount of work if someone needed
it to fall into that specific version. Personally I can't wait for the
patches to get merged since I started this project almost 6 years ago at
this point. Steve Dickson has picked up the torch and kept running with
it since my time no longer permitted me to champion the patch set and I
think its ready for use by quite a few customers.
Dave
Dave
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
