On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 12:42:02PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun 15-10-17 15:34:33, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 4.13-stable tree. > > > > I fail to see how this patch meets the stable kernel rules as found at > > Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst. > > > > I could be totally wrong, and if so, please respond to > > <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> and let me know why this patch should be > > applied. Otherwise, it is now dropped from my patch queues, never to be > > seen again. > > So I guess your complaint is that the problem is not serious enough to > warrant a stable fix? My thinking was: > > 1) This is a userspace visible regression caused by the below mentioned > commit. > 2) It can result in quota grace times not to be obeyed properly although in > practice it would be hard to come up with a scenario where this would > seriously matter (as they are likely to be setup properly on the next > write). I would like to say I was thinking deep thoughts like this, but what I really was looking at was this in the patch: > > Fixes: 7b9ca4c61bc278b771fb57d6290a31ab1fc7fdac Which showd up in 4.14-rc1, and as such, doesn't make much sense for 4.13-stable :) thanks, greg k-h