On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Sage Weil <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2014, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 3:46 AM, Alex Elder <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > On 03/28/2014 07:41 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
>> >> Hi Alex, Ilya,
>> >>
>> >> I've added this and the previous patch to a for-linus branch to send to
>> >> Linux for 3.14. The net of the two patches is simply removing the assert,
>> >> however... the first changes several lines that then get changed back.
>> >> Should we squash them?
>> >
>> > In my opinion, yes. Ilya's movement of the assert within
>> > the spinlock was solving one problem, but ultimately that
>> > assertion should go away.
>>
>> Sage, the way you squashed it we lost Alex's authorship and ended up
>> with his Signed-off-by, my Reviewed-by and me as an Author. Since you
>> haven't pulled it into kernel.org yet, I did
>>
>> git commit --amend --author='Alex Elder <[email protected]>'
>>
>> on for-linus to restore justice ;)
>
> Thanks! I'm noticing now that the commit description doesn't make much
> sense, though, since it is talking about the conditions after the first
> patch.. might just send the originals, unless Alex wants to rewrite it.
I don't see it that way. The conditions it is talking about are true
even w/o the first patch, it's just the first patch made it a lot
easier to hit the bug.
Thanks,
Ilya
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
