On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 03:37:59PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 1:26 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 01:16:33PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 12:41 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman > > > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 12:30:13PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 12:04 PM Frank Hofmann <fhofmann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 6:49 AM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commit 9a5280b312e2e7898b6397b2ca3cfd03f67d7be1 upstream. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [backport for 5.10.y] > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Amir, hi Dave, > > > > > > > > > > > > I've got no objections to backporting this change at all. We've been > > > > > > using the patch on our internal 5.15 tracker branch happily for > > > > > > several months now. > > > > > > > > > > > > Would like to highlight though that it's currently not yet merged in > > > > > > linux-stable 5.15 branch either (it's in 5.19 and mainline alright). > > > > > > If this gets queued for 5.10 then maybe it also should be for 5.15 ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Frank, > > > > > > > > > > Quoting from my cover letter: > > > > > > > > > > Patches 6-7 in this 5.10.y update have not been applied to 5.15.y yet. > > > > > I pointed Leah's attention to these patches and she said she will > > > > > include them in a following 5.15.y update. > > > > > > > > And as you know, this means I can't take this series at all until that > > > > series is ready, so to help us out, in the future, just don't even send > > > > them until they are all ready together. > > > > > > > > > > What? > > > > > > You cannot take backports to 5.10.y before they are applied to 5.15.y? > > > Since when? > > > > Since always. > > > > Why would you ever want someone to upgrade from an older tree (like > > 5.10.y) to a newer one (5.15.y) and have a regression? > > > > That is certainly not a goal when backporting fixes to 5.10.y, but it > can happen as a by-product of the decentralized nature of testing > backports. > > But it did not bother you when xfs patches were applied to 5.4.y and > no xfs patches at all applied to 5.10.y for two years? I've been bothered by xfs patches for so long that really, I didn't care as the maintainers didn't seem bothered either :) But now that everything is working properly, let's do it correctly please. > > So we always try to make sure patches are always applied to newer trees > > first. Yes, sometimes we miss this and make mistakes, but it's always > > been this way and we fix that whenever it happens accidentally. > > > > That is my intention. > I will try to keep to that rule in the future. > I would have waited for the patches to land in 5.15.y, but > Leah got distracted by another task so I decided to not wait, > knowing that the patches are already in her queue. > > > I'll drop this series from my review queue for now until the 5.15.y > > series shows up. > > Please don't drop the series. > Please drop patches 6-7 if you must > Or if you insist I can re-post patches 1-5. Please resend as just the correct ones that you want so I know what to pick exactly. thanks, greg k-h
