On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 03:25:09PM -0800, Sage Weil wrote: > Hi Greg, > > On Mon, 12 Nov 2012, Greg KH wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 10:39:21AM -0800, Sage Weil wrote: > > > On Wed, 31 Oct 2012, Greg KH wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 02:37:32PM -0500, Alex Elder wrote: > > > > > 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... > > > > > > > > That's ok, and is how it should be done, if they are direct backports of > > > > patches that are already in Linus's tree. I'd rather have exact copies, > > > > and lots of them, than small number of newly created patches. > > > > > > > > > I think if we can get the big series int 3.4 stable it would > > > > > be preferable. > > > > > > > > Send them on and I'll be glad to review them. > > > > > > Before I send a huge patch series, fair warning: it's big, 107 patches. > > > Shortlog below. You can peek at the series at > > > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/sage/ceph-client.git > > > wip-3.4-stable > > > > > > It's a series of cleanups and small fixes that culminated in a few > > > patches > > > resolving the last of the locking problems. What's not in the series is > > > the drivers/block/rbd.c work (~50 patches), and the small amount of new > > > functionality that went into net/ceph/ (~19 patches). > > > > > > Should I send the whole pile along? > > > > Wow, that's a lot, but yes, I think it does apply, as long as it is > > fixing known problems and the patches corrispond to upstream patches > > that are in Linus's tree. I can either pull it from the git tree above, > > or you can send me patches in email, which ever is easier for you. > > This pile didn't appear in 3.4.19. Is it queued up for the next one?
I'm still working on the next one, yes, it should show up there, barring anything major happening. 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
