On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 08:18:43AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 14:13 +0100, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled > > > > reiserfs: remove unneeded i_version bump > > > > to the 4.14-stable tree which can be found at: > > http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary > > > > The filename of the patch is: > > reiserfs-remove-unneeded-i_version-bump.patch > > and it can be found in the queue-4.14 subdirectory. > > > > If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree, > > please let <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> know about it. > > > > > > From foo@baz Thu Feb 1 13:45:42 CET 2018 > > From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 11:20:15 -0400 > > Subject: reiserfs: remove unneeded i_version bump > > > > From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > [ Upstream commit 9f97df50c52c2887432debb6238f4e43567386a5 ] > > > > The i_version field in reiserfs is not initialized and is only ever > > updated here. Nothing ever views it, so just remove it. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > fs/reiserfs/super.c | 1 - > > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) > > > > --- a/fs/reiserfs/super.c > > +++ b/fs/reiserfs/super.c > > @@ -2591,7 +2591,6 @@ out: > > return err; > > if (inode->i_size < off + len - towrite) > > i_size_write(inode, off + len - towrite); > > - inode->i_version++; > > inode->i_mtime = inode->i_ctime = current_time(inode); > > mark_inode_dirty(inode); > > return len - towrite; > > > > > > Patches currently in stable-queue which might be from jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx are > > > > queue-4.14/lockd-fix-list_add-double-add-caused-by-legacy-signal-interface.patch > > queue-4.14/reiserfs-remove-unneeded-i_version-bump.patch > > Is this needed to ease merging of another patch? I've no real objection > to including this as it should be harmless but it doesn't really fix a > bug per-se. I'm not sure we really need that in stable kernels. Yeah, that looks odd. At first glance I thought it was fixing an issue, but it seems that it's just a "remove dead code" patch. Sasha, should I drop this? thanks, greg k-h