Re: [PATCH 3.8-stable] GFS2: Fix unlock of fcntl locks during withdrawn state

2013-04-12 Thread Luis Henriques
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 11:05:18AM +0900, Jonghwan Choi wrote: > This patch looks like it should be in the 3.8-stable tree, should we apply > it? I believe this is also applicable to the 3.5 kernel. Queuing it Cheers, -- Luis > > -- > > From: "Steven Whitehouse " > > commit

Re: [PATCH 3.8-stable] GFS2: Fix unlock of fcntl locks during withdrawn state

2013-04-12 Thread Luis Henriques
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 11:05:18AM +0900, Jonghwan Choi wrote: This patch looks like it should be in the 3.8-stable tree, should we apply it? I believe this is also applicable to the 3.5 kernel. Queuing it Cheers, -- Luis -- From: Steven Whitehouse swhit...@redhat.com

Re: [PATCH 3.8-stable] GFS2: Fix unlock of fcntl locks during withdrawn state

2013-04-11 Thread Steven Whitehouse
Hi, On Thu, 2013-04-11 at 11:05 +0900, Jonghwan Choi wrote: > This patch looks like it should be in the 3.8-stable tree, should we apply > it? > Yes, that seems reasonable to me, Steve. > -- > > From: "Steven Whitehouse " > > commit c2952d202f710d326ac36a8ea6bd216b20615ec8

Re: [PATCH 3.8-stable] GFS2: Fix unlock of fcntl locks during withdrawn state

2013-04-11 Thread Steven Whitehouse
Hi, On Thu, 2013-04-11 at 11:05 +0900, Jonghwan Choi wrote: This patch looks like it should be in the 3.8-stable tree, should we apply it? Yes, that seems reasonable to me, Steve. -- From: Steven Whitehouse swhit...@redhat.com commit

[PATCH 3.8-stable] GFS2: Fix unlock of fcntl locks during withdrawn state

2013-04-10 Thread Jonghwan Choi
This patch looks like it should be in the 3.8-stable tree, should we apply it? -- From: "Steven Whitehouse " commit c2952d202f710d326ac36a8ea6bd216b20615ec8 upstream When withdraw occurs, we need to continue to allow unlocks of fcntl locks to occur, however these will only be

[PATCH 3.8-stable] GFS2: Fix unlock of fcntl locks during withdrawn state

2013-04-10 Thread Jonghwan Choi
This patch looks like it should be in the 3.8-stable tree, should we apply it? -- From: Steven Whitehouse swhit...@redhat.com commit c2952d202f710d326ac36a8ea6bd216b20615ec8 upstream When withdraw occurs, we need to continue to allow unlocks of fcntl locks to occur, however