Dave, On Sun, Jun 05, 2016 at 12:16:54PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Sun, Jun 05, 2016 at 02:19:32AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > On Sun, 2016-06-05 at 09:28 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > You do realise that this sort of backport effectively makes the > > > stable kernels unsupportable by the upstream XFS developers? You're > > > taking random changes from the upstream kernel until the kernel > > > compiles, and then mostly hoping that it works. > > > > I'm applying slightly more intelligence than that, but of course I'm > > not an XFS developer. > > Sorry, Ben, I didn't mean to imply you hadn't done your due diligence > properly. It's more a case of lots of things around these patches > also changed, and from that perspective the changes are effective a > random selection of changes spread across several years of > development. > > It's subtle things, like changes to how IO completion is processed > (especially for AIO), etc that the backported code might depend on > for correct behaviour but aren't in the older kernels. These sorts > of subtle problems are typically only discovered by users with > uncommon applications and/or load.... Does this mean that as a rule of thumb we'd rather avoid backporting XFS fixes unless they seem really obvious (or at all) ? Thanks, Willy _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
