On Sun, Nov 05, 2023 at 10:56:30AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > Greg, > > Friday before the merge window opened, I received a bug report > for the eventfs code that was in linux-next. I spent the next > 5 days debugging it and not only fixing it, but it led to finding > other bugs in the code. Several of these other bugs happen to > also affect the 6.6 kernel. > > The eventfs code was written in two parts to lower the complexity. > The first part added just the dynamic creation of the eventfs > file system and that was added to 6.6. > > The second part went further and removed the one-to-one mapping between > dentry/inode and meta data, as all events have the same files. It replaced > the meta data for each file with callbacks, which caused quite a bit of > code churn. > > As the merge window was already open, when I finished all the fixes > I just sent those fixes on top of the linux-next changes along with > my pull request. That means, there are 5 commits that are marked > stable (or should be marked for stable) that need to be applied to > 6.6 but require a bit of tweaking or even a new way of implementing the fix! > > After sending the pull request, I then checked out 6.6 an took those > 5 changes and fixed them up on top of it. I ran them through all my > tests that I use to send to Linus. > > So these should be as good as the versions of the patches in Linus's tree. > I waited until Linus pulled in those changes to send this series out. All now queued up. Note, patch 1/6 needs to go to older kernels as well, according to your Fixes: tag, so if you could provide backports for them as well that would be great. thanks, greg k-h
