On 10/31/2012 02:29 PM, 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.
9 patches on top of 3.5.4 (I know, 3.5.7 is current). Most of those
will probably be OK, or if really pressed, could be back-ported with
a bit more work.
3.4.9 has a 28 patch series, and I know some of those were not
direct bug fixes, they were patches put in place to make the
bug fixes apply without risking them becoming new bugs...
I think if we can get the big series int 3.4 stable it would
be preferable.
-Alex
> 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.
>
> BTW most these would be appropriate for 3.5 as well, if there is going be
> another (final?) 3.5 stable release.
>
> Thanks!
> sage
>
--
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
