On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 09:50:16AM -0700, Boaz Harrosh wrote: > On 11/04/2011 09:04 AM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > Boaz points out that I forgot to add stable cc's to two commits: > > > > 48483bf23a568f3ef4cc7ad2c8f1a082f10ad0e7 "nfsd4: simplify recovery dir setting" > > 6577aac01f00636c16cd583c30bd4dedf18475d5 "nfsd4: fix failure to > > end nfsd4 grace period" > > > > which fix a regression introduced by > > ab1350b2b3c1dd2e465a6abdda608d8c44facfb8 "nfsd41: Deny new lock before > > RECLAIM_COMPLETE done" (first included in v3.1-rc1). > > > > Included below for reference, but I assume simplest for you will be to > > cherry-pick the above two sha1's. > > > > Thanks! > > > > --b. > > > > Bruce hi, thanks > > Yesterday I hit this bug again. I rebased on Benny's tree which did not have them > for some reason. It's hunting me. ;-) > > Just for Future reference, these patches were suppose to be submitted very early around > rc3 when we found them. This is what the -rcX are for, to test and fix what was broken > in the merge window. > > Please forgive me I should have followed it through, but was too busy and forgot. > > But in general you should always have an rc-fixes branch and bug fixes patches > should go there More specifically (and especially later in the -rc's) Linus has ask that we raise the bar somewhat above just "bug fixes"--but yes, this was a regression with a pretty simple fix, so I should have gotten it in. > and not into the linux-next branch. And yes both branches should > be included in linux-next. Agreed. Feel free to yell when you see something I missed. I'm feeling spread a little thin.... --b. -- 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
