William Dauchy wrote: On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 10:29 PM, Myklebust, Trond <Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The main reason is that it should be a _very_ rare event, since it > requires a call to try_to_get_module(THIS) to fail, and so I can't see > that it could ever cause a huge leakage. > If someone can show that it is more of a problem than I suggest above, > then I'm happy to reconsider. Understood. I didn't know a patch fixing a very rare event could not go in stable. Every patch, no matter how "obviously" correct, carries a risk of introducing new bugs. Trond is responsible for weighing the risk of new bugs against the benefit of fixing old ones. He has a lot of experience doing this. If he makes a mistake, he takes the heat for your bugs. Introducing a new bug into stable is a lot worse than introducing one into -next. -- 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
