On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 06:13:38PM +0100, Francis Moreau wrote: > On 03/06/2014 05:45 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 05:42:49PM +0100, Francis Moreau wrote: > >> On 03/05/2014 07:54 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > >>> On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 06:45:46PM +0800, Rui Xiang wrote: > >>>> Hi Greg, > >>>> > >>>> These are a bunch of commits from the list of upstream commits > >>>> that have been backported to 3.2 but missing from 3.4. > >>>> > >>>> For the 14 commits, > >>>> - 12 commits were marked for stable but can't be applied cleanly to > >>>> 3.4.x. > >>>> - 1 commit is not a bug fix, but a prerequisite for a commit which > >>>> had been backported to 3.4.x without this commit. So it needn't to be > >>>> applied. > >>>> - 1 commit has no stable tag. I've found out why it was backported > >>>> to 3.2.x, and I'm sure it should be applied to 3.4.x. > >>>> > >>>> Please cherry-pick these commits from 3.2.x: > >>>> > >>>> ccebcc74c81d nilfs2: fix issue with race condition of competition between segments for dirty blocks > >>>> b5f9e3533584 fuse: readdir: check for slash in names > >>>> 941781515755 fuse: hotfix truncate_pagecache() issue > >>>> be47dfad8e39 libceph: unregister request in __map_request failed and nofail == false > >>>> eb4a22ba43d9 cifs: don't instantiate new dentries in readdir for inodes that need to be revalidated immediately > >>>> 21544884d7d5 ncpfs: fix rmdir returns Device or resource busy > >>>> 164ed4383ca6 ext4/jbd2: don't wait (forever) for stale tid caused by wraparound > >>>> 2ff3ae3932b9 UBIFS: fix double free of ubifs_orphan objects > >>>> 3e411534ea3b ext4: fix possible use-after-free with AIO > >>>> f6f82cba2ccb cifs: adjust sequence number downward after signing NT_CANCEL request > >>>> > >>>> There are 3 other commits that need some adjustments. I'll send > >>>> out the backports. > >>> > >>> Thanks so much for this, I've now included these commits, and the 3 > >>> other. > >>> > >> > >> Just out of curiosity, why are those commits missing from the 3.4.x > >> stable tree but not from the 3.2.x one ? > > > > Because they required manual backporting to the 3.4.x kernel, and Ben > > did that work. With my workload, I can't take the time to backport > > every stable patch to the 3.4.x tree, I rely on the subsystem > > maintainers and others, to do this work. > > > > Thanks for clarifying. > > Maybe you should put a list of commits which need to be backported (in > hold state). It might be better than possibly forgetting them. I don't think you understand the quantity of patches involved here. Just look at all of the patches that go into the "latest" stable release. It's averaging over 100 patches a week. About 30-40 of them aer relevant for the 3.4 kernel, so that means you would have to do research on 60-70 patches a week. Who would be willing to look at that stream? Again, I sure don't... thanks, greg k-h -- 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