Re: Patch "fanotify: Allow users to request FAN_FS_ERROR events" has been added to the 5.15-stable tree

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 5:57 PM Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@oraclecom> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 19, 2024, at 11:32 AM, Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 04:26:34AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> >>  Sasha,
> >>  Something is off.
> >>  This is a new feature.
> >>  Not sure how it got selected for stable and dragged a *lot* of
> >>  infrastructure code changes with it.
> >>  Can you explain why triggered this backports or is it just "AI"?
> >
> > Hey Amir,
> >
> > The patches you've pointed out are part of a series backported by Chuck
> > for the benefit of nfsd.
> >
> > In general, we don't object to new functionality as long as:
> >
> > 1. It helps reduce divergence of later fixes from upstream.
> > 2. It's well tested.
>
> Amir, this is why I asked you about how you test fanotify.
>
> The goal of my backport was to address issues with the NFSD
> filecache, and unfortunately, a lot of it depends on fixes
> and features in fs/notify.

OK, I wonder which features filecache depends on?
I can't believe that it depends on any of the final
"wire up fanotify XXX" commits.

Anyway, I do not have an objection to backporting those features,
just wanted to know if there was a reason.
In house, we are using the 5.15 LTS kernel with some of those
features backported.

Jan, WDYT?

Thanks,
Amir.





[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux