On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 07:28:31AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 06:30:56PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > As the patch was tagged with 3.10+, I assumed that it was safe to be > > merged to those older kernels, otherwise I would never have done so. We > > do have ways to mark external things like this for stable patches, it's > > a great help when doing backports. > > I guess only 3.14.72 was affected in the end. 3.18.35 has the fix but my > understanding is that after 3.17 it's OK. Correct. > Apparently it's not yet queued > for 3.16. The queue for 3.16 has a different bunch of XFS stuff that I've previous said is pretty risky and not advisable to back port (the mmaplock stuff). I'm waiting for that to get to users and a new bunch of whacky problems to be reported... > Jiri has queued it for 3.12 but not yet released it. For 3.10 > I only pick patches that are already in a 3.14 release so I didn't have > the time to backport it to 3.10 yet as the preview started before the > release. Just lucky, eh? > Overall the regression lived only 8 days in a single branch, I > guess it shows that our process works rather well and limits the exposure > to regressions. That it got as far as release and it took so long to get to the upstream maintainers shows the process could do with being improved. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html