On 22 April 2018 9:31:06 AM IST, "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: >On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 08:00:44AM +0530, Harsh Shandilya wrote: >> > >> >[PATCH 4.9.y 3/3] ext4: don't allow r/w mounts if metadata blocks >> I mentioned that the patches are for 3.18.y in the cover letter title >but you're right it should have been here as well. Noted for later :) >> > >As far as I can tell I wasn't cc'ed on the cover letter, so I didn't >see it. > >> I've had to make changes to all the three patches, can you please >> Ack the backports so that Greg knows I didn't fubar anything? I'd >> appreciate it a lot. > >If you want me to review the patches, can you do me a favor? > >It looks like you sent two interleaved patches, one with 4 patches, >ahnd one with 3 patches, and with a very confusing in-reply-to headers >which completely confused the mail threading. So this is what I see >in my inbox, and it is a Complete Mess: > >Apr 21 Harsh Shandilya (6.6K) ┬─>[PATCH 4/4] ext4: force revalidation >of directory pointer afte >Apr 21 Harsh Shandilya (9.1K) ├─>[PATCH 1/4] ext4: add validity checks >for bitmap block numbers >Apr 21 Harsh Shandilya (9.5K) │ └─>[PATCH 1/3] ext4: add validity >checks for bitmap block numbe >Apr 21 Harsh Shandilya (6.7K) ├─>[PATCH 2/4] ext4: fail ext4_iget for >root directory if unalloc >Apr 21 Harsh Shandilya (6.9K) │ └─>[PATCH 2/3] ext4: fail ext4_iget for >root directory if unall >Apr 21 Harsh Shandilya (7.0K) └─>[PATCH 3/4] ext4: don't allow r/w >mounts if metadata blocks ov >Apr 21 Harsh Shandilya (7.4K) └─>[PATCH 3/3] ext4: don't allow r/w >mounts if metadata blocks > >(What is this all about? I didn't get the cover letter. Why are some >of the patches revised, and why is the subsequent patch series have >only 3 patches instead of 4? Why wasn't this all explained the >PATCH-v2 cover letter? (Or maybe it was, but I'll never know because >I wasn't sent it, if it exists. :-) > >So can you please resend with a subject prefix that looks like this: >"[PATCH-v3 3.18 1/4]" > >And send it as a free-standard mail thread, with the cover-letter >message not chained to anything else, and with each just being just a >reply to the previous one? I want something that looks like this: > >Mar 12 Darrick J. Wong (6.4K) [PATCH v4 0/4] e2scrub: online fsck for >ext4 >Mar 12 Darrick J. Wong (7.3K) ├─>[PATCH 1/4] tune2fs: allow setting the >filesystem error bit >Mar 12 Darrick J. Wong ( 29K) ├─>[PATCH 2/4] e2scrub: create online >fsck tool of sorts >Mar 12 Darrick J. Wong (9.6K) ├─>[PATCH 3/4] e2scrub: create a script >to scrub all ext* filesyst >Mar 12 Darrick J. Wong ( 34K) └─>[PATCH 4/4] e2scrub: add service >(cron, systemd) support > >See the difference? > >Thanks, > > - Ted Yes I see where I screwed up, I'll have the revised series sent in five minutes. Sorry for the mess :( -- Harsh Shandilya, PRJKT Development LLC