From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753226AbaIERKN (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Sep 2014 13:10:13 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f51.google.com ([209.85.220.51]:41837 "EHLO mail-pa0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751355AbaIERKK (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Sep 2014 13:10:10 -0400 Message-ID: <5409EE75.9060407@kernel.dk> Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 11:10:13 -0600 From: Jens Axboe User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Arne Wiebalck , Peter Kieser , "eddie@ehuk.net" , Francis Moreau , Kent Overstreet CC: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org" , stable Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] bcache changes for 3.17 References: <20140805043346.GF541@moria.home.lan> <53E10D48.1010700@kernel.dk> <53E7251B.3080305@kieser.ca> <540966BA.9030106@gmail.com> <5409C5FC.6020406@kernel.dk> <5409D8BC.7030003@ehuk.net> <5409E7AB.7040704@kieser.ca> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 09/05/2014 11:03 AM, Arne Wiebalck wrote: > > On Sep 5, 2014, at 6:41 PM, Peter Kieser > wrote: > >> >> On 2014-09-05 8:37 AM, Eddie Chapman wrote: >>> On 05/09/14 15:17, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>> (from oldest to newest). And that's just from 3.16 to 3.17-rc3, going >>>> all the way back to 3.10 would be a lot of work. If there's anyone that >>>> cares about bcache on stable kernels (and actually use it), now would be >>>> a good time to pipe up. >>> >>> Just "piping up" as I care about bcache and actually use it in production on 3.10! Shame I don't have the knowledge to try and backport these though :-) >>> >>> Eddie >> >> I'm "piping up" as well, I use bcache on 3.10 in production. >> >> -Peter >> > > > More "piping up": we currently use bcache on a few nodes in production, on 3.14 and 3.15, and plan to roll it out on a wider scale now. > If necessary we'll go with these kernels, but we'd certainly prefer our usual 3.10-based CentOS kernel. OK, so we definitely have people using it in production. My concern was that whomever does the backport of the appropriate patches to 3.10/14/15 stable would have an audience for getting some amount of testing of such a patch series. Now we just need someone to line up to do the work... -- Jens Axboe