J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 07:25:10PM +1100, Greg Banks wrote: > >> These patches are a snapshot of in-progress work >> > > That sounds suspiciously like "do not apply!". On these patches, it's your call. When I say "in-progress" I really mean that these haven't shipped in an SGI product. There are more patches in this same series, not yet posted, which are definitely in the "do not apply" category and which I will mark as such when they appear. For the latter (logic-changing) patches, I can report that they've had the same amount of testing that most Linux patches claim to have received. In other words they worked fine on one architecture, with the obvious publicly available testsuite, with a small client count, with light load levels, and no data corruption testing, and no point regression test for the bug being fixed. I've seen code checked into Linux with less testing. OTOH these patches have not been through an SGI QA cycle, and given the circumstances it seems unlikely they will. So I would not ship these in an SGI product yet. Your call. I would be comfortable with these patches going into 2.6.30. > I may as well queue up > the first 6 for 2.6.30, though? > Yes, the first 6 make no logic changes and I believe they are quite harmless. -- Greg Banks, P.Engineer, SGI Australian Software Group. the brightly coloured sporks of revolution. I don't speak for SGI. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
