On 08/28/13 16:31, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 04:07:12PM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote:
On 08/28/13 16:02, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 03:49:30PM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote:
On 08/28/13 06:22, Dave Chinner wrote:
From: Dave Chinner<dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
Looks good. Nice to get into Linux 3.12 and possibly back to stable.
Why stable? It's v5 only code, and everyon knows that is still in
the experimental stage....
yep.
That doesn't answer my question. You had to have some reason for
suggesting a possible stable backport for this code after reviewing
it, and I'm interested to know what it was...
Cheers,
Dave.
No thought that it would be nice to get it into Linux 3.12 and if Brian
or anyone wants to review it, then it needs to be done soon.
my "yep" was a terse agreeing with your point.
Yep, this problem has been around forever.
Yep, this problem was found/confirmed by your verifier.
Yep, this problem can only be fixed this way in superblock v5.
Yep, I had blinders on and was not thinking this to experimental code
so it does not matter to push it back.
--Mark.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
