On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:29:20PM -0700, Sage Weil wrote: > On Wed, 31 Oct 2012, Greg KH wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 05:37:31PM -0700, Sage Weil wrote: > > > On Tue, 30 Oct 2012, Greg KH wrote: > > > > What stable tree(s) do you want this applied to? > > > > > > Sorry- this series is for 3.6.x. Thanks! > > > > Why? It seems that some of these should also go to older kernels, like > > 3.4 and 3.0, right? > > Yeah.. that's my dilemma. Alex put together branches in ceph-client.git > picking out fixes for 3.4 and 3.5. The problem is that the important > fixes were extensive patches (restructuring the locking for a whole > segment of code), so I'm not sure how palatable they are for the stable > kernels. They demonstrably fix the bugs, but they are big. I wanted to > get these recent fixes into 3.6 stable before figuring out what to do > about the older kernels. > > Is this something that's my call as the ceph maintainer, or is there a > threshold from your end? FWIW I would ask any customer to upgrade to a > newer kernel or apply these patches themselves before running in > production.
It's both your call, along with working with me. If you look at your inbox, I did apply some of the patches that built properly to the 3.4 and 3.0-stable trees. If you want me to remove those, please let me know. If you want to provide backports of the other patches to older kernels, that's fine, I'll be glad to review and take them. But if you don't want to, and feel that users should be using 3.6 or newer, that's also fine with me, and I have no objection. > BTW most these would be appropriate for 3.5 as well, if there is going be > another (final?) 3.5 stable release. 3.5 is end-of-life, see the www.kernel.org page for that information. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
