On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 08:18:23AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> Here is a recent example, where during patch review, I requested NOT to
> include
> any stable backport triggers [1]:
> "...We should consider sending this to stable, but maybe let's merge
> first and let it
> run in master for a
> > It seems like this can all be avoided simply by scheduling the
> > automated fixes scans once the upstream kernel is released, not
> > while it is still being stabilised by -rc releases. That way stable
> > kernels get better tested fixes, they still get the same quantity of
> > fixes, and
On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 10:04:17PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 07:40:45AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 08:06:01PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 06:41:43PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 2,
On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 07:40:45AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 08:06:01PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 06:41:43PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 5:24 PM David Howells wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Miklos Szeredi wrote:
On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 08:06:01PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 06:41:43PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 5:24 PM David Howells wrote:
> > >
> > > Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > >
> > > > Stable cc also?
> > > >
> > > > Cc: # 5.8
> > >
> > >
On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 06:41:43PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 5:24 PM David Howells wrote:
> >
> > Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> >
> > > Stable cc also?
> > >
> > > Cc: # 5.8
> >
> > That seems to be unnecessary, provided there's a Fixes: tag.
>
> Is it?
>
> Fixes: means
On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 5:24 PM David Howells wrote:
>
> Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>
> > Stable cc also?
> >
> > Cc: # 5.8
>
> That seems to be unnecessary, provided there's a Fixes: tag.
Is it?
Fixes: means it fixes a patch, Cc: stable means it needs to be
included in stable kernels. The two are
Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> Stable cc also?
>
> Cc: # 5.8
That seems to be unnecessary, provided there's a Fixes: tag.
David
On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 5:03 PM Ira Weiny wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 05:21:40PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > [*] Note: This needs to be merged as soon as possible as it's introducing
> > an incompatible UAPI change...
> >
> > STATX_ATTR_MOUNT_ROOT and STATX_ATTR_DAX got merged with the
On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 05:21:40PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> [*] Note: This needs to be merged as soon as possible as it's introducing an
> incompatible UAPI change...
>
> STATX_ATTR_MOUNT_ROOT and STATX_ATTR_DAX got merged with the same value,
> so one of them needs fixing. Move
Looks good for the urgent fix:
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig
We can keep debatting about stx_attributes_mask for a while once this
is sorted out :)
On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 05:21:40PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> [*] Note: This needs to be merged as soon as possible as it's introducing an
> incompatible UAPI change...
>
> STATX_ATTR_MOUNT_ROOT and STATX_ATTR_DAX got merged with the same value,
> so one of them needs fixing. Move
[*] Note: This needs to be merged as soon as possible as it's introducing an
incompatible UAPI change...
STATX_ATTR_MOUNT_ROOT and STATX_ATTR_DAX got merged with the same value,
so one of them needs fixing. Move STATX_ATTR_DAX.
While we're in here, clarify the value-matching scheme for some of
13 matches
Mail list logo
