Andrew Morton wrote:
>Boy, lots of reiserfs things happening lately. > >We presently have: > >reiserfs-do-not-check-if-unsigned-0.patch [ merged today ] >reiserfs-fix-transaction-overflowing.patch >reiserfs-handle-trans_id-overflow.patch >reiserfs-reiserfs_file_write-will-lose-error-code-when-a-0-length-write-occurs-w-o_sync.patch >reiserfs-cleanups.patch >reiserfs-use-balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr-in-reiserfs_file_write.patch >reiserfs-fix-unaligned-bitmap-usage.patch > >The question is, which of these are sufficiently serious-and-safe for >2.6.16? > >I haven't seen any resierfs bug reports for quite some time (except for the >usual dribble of it-goes-oops-in-prints.c-when-something-went-wrong >reports). > >So I'm inclined to hold off on all the above? > > > > I suggest that they sit in -mm or an rc for ~2 weeks before they go in. If 2.6.16 is coming out before then, then let it ship without them. All of these things are pretty obscure/rare, so not unsettling the code matters more than getting them in.