From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935714Ab3BOPHX (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:07:23 -0500 Received: from relay2.sgi.com ([192.48.179.30]:39635 "EHLO relay.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756108Ab3BOPHW (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:07:22 -0500 Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 09:07:17 -0600 From: Ben Myers To: Dave Chinner Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , Paolo Bonzini , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, Dave Chinner , Brian Foster , CAI Qian , xfs@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: [ 68/89] xfs: fix _xfs_buf_find oops on blocks beyond the filesystem end Message-ID: <20130215150717.GR30652@sgi.com> References: <20130201130207.444989281@linuxfoundation.org> <20130201130212.381996681@linuxfoundation.org> <511BB198.1080609@redhat.com> <20130213161845.GA20916@kroah.com> <20130214000730.GI26694@dastard> <20130214192614.GA6945@kroah.com> <20130214195512.GQ30652@sgi.com> <20130214200501.GA23036@kroah.com> <20130215014729.GR26694@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130215014729.GR26694@dastard> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hey, On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:47:29PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 12:05:01PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 01:55:12PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: > > > > Ok, how about I never apply any xfs stable kernel patch, unless you send > > > > it to stable@vger.kernel.org? > > > > > > Dave has made it clear that he doesn't want to be involved in maintaining > > > -stable kernels. > > I don't think you quite understand, Ben. ... > > > > I have that rule in place for some other subsystems that don't want me > > > > applying stuff that they aren't aware of, and have no problem doing the same > > > > thing here. > > > > > > > > Just let me know. > > Sounds like a fine idea, Greg. > > > > Here are the usual suspects: > > > > > > Ben Myers > > > Mark Tinguely > > > Dave Chinner > > > Eric Sandeen > > I don't think it should be restricted to individuals. The private > thread used to request this backport is exactly why I didn't see > the request in a timely fashion, and also the reason why we didn't > end up with notifications for review going to xfs@oss.sgi.com. > > Hence I'd suggest the only thing that matters is that there is a cc > to xfs@oss.sgi.com, because that means all of the above people (and > more) are on that list and hence have the best chance to see and > review the backport request. > > > Ok, but for this specific patch, did I do something wrong in taking it? > > No, you didn't do anything wrong, Greg. Stuff went wrong on the XFS > side of the fence. > > > I guess I'll just let you send me xfs patches, is that ok with everyone > > else? > > Sure, that would work, but only after the patches have been sent to > xfs@oss.sgi.com for review and testing and been acked. And, of > course, the stable submission woul dalso need to have a > xfs@oss.sgi.com cc on it. ;) Making sure that xfs@oss.sgi.com is Cc'd on -stable patches seems reasonable to me. No objection here, Dave. -Ben