On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 02:11:03PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Ross Zwisler
> <ross.zwisler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > This reverts commit 8346c416d17bf5b4ea1508662959bb62e73fd6a5.
> >
> > This commit did fix the issue it intended to fix, but it turns out that
> > the locking changes introduced by these two commits:
> >
> > commit 843172978bb9 ("dax: fix race between simultaneous faults")
> > commit 46c043ede471 ("mm: take i_mmap_lock in unmap_mapping_range() for DAX")
> >
> > had other issues as well, so they need to just be reverted.
>
> Wait, why introduce two points in the kernel history where we have a
> known uninitialized variable? I'd say fix up the revert of "mm: take
> i_mmap_lock in unmap_mapping_range() for DAX" to address the conflict
> with the fix, one less patch and keeps the stability rolling forward.
Essentially because I wasn't sure about the rules regarding reverts, if there
are any. I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that you'd want a 1:1 relationship
between original commits and reverts. If it's better to not have intermediate
breakage, sure, let's squash them.
--
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
