On Fri, 2012-09-21 at 11:40 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > Hi, > > I have a set of patches that are currently queued for merging for 3.6. > > I didn't mark them for [email protected], since they aren't a bug > fix, but rather a new feature. However, it occurs to me that this is a > feature that many enterprise/stable users would probably want.
It's kind of a bug in that one would not expect online resizing to have a size limit lower than the rest of the filesystem code. > The patches are very low risk in that they only change the online > resizing codepath, and enable resizing for file systems that previously > would not support resizing. > > So what do you think? When these patches go upstream, should I send a > the commit id's or patches to [email protected]? And given that I > didn't mark them with a cc:[email protected], do I need to send > separate patches for each stable kernel, or just one for 3.5? I expect > they should apply cleanly all the way back to 3.2 or 3.0. I'm not convinced this strictly meets the stable kernel rules, but in practice we make a trade-off of severity against risk (i.e. fixes for lower severity bugs tend to be accepted if the fix appears to be low-risk). So I would be willing to consider the patches once they've had a reasonable amount of testing. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Usenet is essentially a HUGE group of people passing notes in class. - Rachel Kadel, `A Quick Guide to Newsgroup Etiquette'
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
