On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 04:43:37PM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote: > 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. Ok, all good then. :) Thanks for explaining in more detail, Mark. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
