On 12/05/12 15:45, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 05:42:08PM -0600, Mark Tinguely wrote:
Here a collection of bug fixes for 3.0-stable. Many of these patches
were also selected by Dave Chinner as possible 3.0-stable patches:
http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2012-08/msg00255.html
I chose only bug fixes and kept the changes to a minimum.
Patch 21/22 are required for the bug fix in patch 23 but they are
important changes in their own right.
So I'll ask the same question that Christoph asked me: If nobody is
reporting problems on 3.0.x, why do this and risk regression and
fallout that requires fixing?
FWIW, what testing have you done?
Cheers,
Dave.
Do you mean?
http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2012-09/msg00002.html
I read that message as a concern that your original Linux 3.0-stable
patch series contained some items that did not meet the -stable
criteria.
As for adding patches to 3.0-stable. I believed then and now that
proactively suggesting bug fixes into 3.0-stable is a good thing
because it is the long term stable branch.
A few days after Christoph's email, I put my "Reviewed-by:" on your
series.
http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2012-09/msg00167.html
As for testing, the whole series is spun on xfstests loops for days on
x86_32 and x86_64 boxes, just like we test a top of tree patch series.
--Mark.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
