> On Mar 19, 2024, at 6:06 PM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 08:47:10PM +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote: >> 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. > > Anything touching the interface between subsystems is sketchy > and potentially dangerous. I don't regard this comment as a technical rationale, but rather as superstition. I've asked three times for detail, and you've given nothing but hand waving. > And I'm rally done with this BS discussion here. There is obviously > nothing fixed by backporting it, there has been no testing on the > backport and we're all wasting our time. No, there is nothing fixed. Again, fixing shit is not the only reason patches are applied to stable, so that's not a convincing or even valid rationale not to apply it. There has been no testing of pNFS changes in the backport because there is no testing of pNFS patches applied upstream. IOW, the backport got the same testing as all pNFS-related patches do. We are actively working on correcting this testing gap. I invite you to contribute meaningfully by suggesting tests we can run. Or you can just continue to complain. Whatever floats your boat. > NAK for these backports. Sasha, Greg, and I will discuss next steps. -- Chuck Lever
