> On Mar 19, 2024, at 4:31 PM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 08:14:23PM +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote: >> 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. > > Its a huge cross-subsystem changes. That comment doesn't match the size and complexity of the three patches I applied. They are tiny, adding one internal block device method call. I don't see any palpable risk here, please elaborate. > The fact that it does not cause problems is up to the > person peroposing such a non-standard backport, which > should be a high bar. That's debatable. There is no bar for AUTOSEL patches, for example. Will the three patches I applied have any impact on non-NFS block operation? > How much testing did this get with pNFS scsi layouts? We have no pNFS tests in our cohort of upstream NFS tests. How often do you test pNFS SCSI layouts in stable kernels, and what test suite do you use? I'm very happy to consider adding to our growing list of kdevops workflows for NFSD. -- Chuck Lever
