On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 10:09:34AM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote: > On 07/02/2014 01:53 AM, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 01:51:22PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote: > >> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.12.24 release. > >> There are 181 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > >> to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > >> let me know. > > ..... > >> Dave Chinner (3): > >> xfs: prevent deadlock trying to cover an active log > >> xfs: prevent stack overflows from page cache allocation > >> xfs: xfs_remove deadlocks due to inverted AGF vs AGI lock ordering > > > > None of the XFS patches you're backporting were marked for stable. > > What criteria did you choose them by, and how are you testing the > > result? > > Hi Dave, > > these patches are in SUSE's enterprise linux based on 3.12. So I picked > them from there. Testing is covered by our QA, but of course, with some > additional patches on the top of them which do not satisfy the stable > rules (because they add features). > > > Randomly picked XFS backports have a nasty habit of causing > > regressions, and it's always me that is on the pointy end of having > > to triage problems users report with those backports... > > Despite the patches fix real problems, if you prefer me not to take such > patches, I will drop them and will apply no more. I don't mind as long as I know they are being testing properly. It sounds like you've already got that in hand (via SuSE QA), so I don't have any problems with including them. I just wanted to understand the process because it seemed a little unusual for a stable kernel. ;) 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