> On Mar 19, 2024, at 4:08 PM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 01:45:02PM +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote: >> >> >>> On Mar 18, 2024, at 7:14 PM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> How did this end up being a stable candidate? >> >> I pulled it into a backport of NFSD patches. It's needed to get a >> subsequent upstream commit to apply cleanly. > > The series doesn't belong anywhere near -stable. It's a nice cleanup > of block APIs, but not really a bug fix of any kind. It also is fairly > invasive touching the block layer and the sd driver in addition to nfsd. Actually the three SCSI patches I pulled in look fairly benign. One of the purposes of this NFSD backport effort is to make it easier to apply NFSD patches cleanly to the stable kernels, and that's what these three patches do. Do you have a technical reason these don't belong in -stable, like, they will cause memory or disk block overwrites? Because "not really a bug fix" is not a real good reason for not including patches in stable: we've been including patches in stable for many years whose only purpose is to help subsequent patches apply. -- Chuck Lever
