From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B61AC43441 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 17:31:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BC1720863 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 17:31:49 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="OMjuABIi" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 1BC1720863 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730403AbeK3Ehy (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Nov 2018 23:37:54 -0500 Received: from mail-wm1-f68.google.com ([209.85.128.68]:34101 "EHLO mail-wm1-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728535AbeK3Ehy (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Nov 2018 23:37:54 -0500 Received: by mail-wm1-f68.google.com with SMTP id y185so6881071wmd.1; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 09:31:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=xqD7o4MHZv+Oi4/Hfici0afEYbeABMQC9kEIregTpVA=; b=OMjuABIiID5UzhcPfTqNecQZQZxByiORVEv3roioLhWwwTkmlqyt/R6YKt9bol2psb WDOEbXcLcr2nBEqGhj9hlWPY/u9P0TgQYwmi4ITv4J1gLw+b2qk8bV5FJdj8N7+4rd6p 1G/HBL08HRCmH/hO6uZ1rG9VtdopMUSGeV/e7335YfZkRfqAtXTut0/4yD8F5C0KmZT8 JsFDHDY9pOTWYzVXOTVMHSGMOKM+IjFXScMcIQWey/QaDpmxw8dtJLXuhOsM4GcQXcb5 2jfuvc7acXSmEiaP2pY7kTRxZzu1M8w7KK4fVmo3yACigrdXf4bUjF+c8m4vQ4R4AgvT HN5g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xqD7o4MHZv+Oi4/Hfici0afEYbeABMQC9kEIregTpVA=; b=QLby4MLF9t7IFjG/QmyyF+/sSoC0I5KlH6JYCh0GhyR/7dgtLi9kAQzz/IY78426Pk eaxhBcIDL68MpulkRXhs47nRR246/cXNvqpOG9DHRFo4zJscqBdCByZ/bCA7rcSS1RAk B3a5oQ7+mm9rjmhbUVLOb0ZYAlqeRV6GfM9LBLBApMADKR1GKy45Mu26OpwF+UFlzvEo WSk2ez7091wzF3tXvZzD50MZ5onDkXsJUXV5Ia+wJ0kk/lCTQXg7XFcy2xQQWqhxONhg YIzYVebGRzyDFAqI3M/Nc7taQrFBV7XwMIJkTYoWp3J5rFpFAE1bmVba3Thg1/qQMQeX /Pzw== X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWbF5v96rN8ZCU6/YXCie5BPxqmdFgHsSOLPldQeg9jIpE3qpEo4 IojdI5+GjgWfTi/N2qr1kMgcO1GbTrQ1ZaUrTcE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/W/ILjvUhLCm7TyP/emaq6DJw8chRLN5JUp0zN+kOBtEHS8Fh9oPcMyi2c5DXJOiSMguM/fMbwHJUhxCYBSl9g= X-Received: by 2002:a1c:af07:: with SMTP id y7mr2428645wme.94.1543512705394; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 09:31:45 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20181129135921.231283053@linuxfoundation.org> <20181129135922.602882966@linuxfoundation.org> <20181129160722.GA31919@kroah.com> <20181129171038.GA4651@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: <20181129171038.GA4651@kroah.com> From: Tigran Aivazian Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 17:31:33 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19 033/110] bfs: add sanity check at bfs_fill_super() To: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: LKML , stable@vger.kernel.org, Tetsuo Handa , syzbot , Andrew Morton , willy@infradead.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 17:10, Greg KH wrote: > Your patch has to apply on top of the existing one, so there's not an > issue here. > And might as well fix it now, as I can never count on a "future" patch > getting merged. It is already fixed, i.e. it applies cleanly against the existing (i.e. 4.19.5) kernel. What I meant is that, there is little or no point in applying a short-lived patch as there is no conceivable reason that it can become a long-lived one. Whatever else may have changed (all for the better of course) in the past 20 years in Linux kernel development, I presume the basic fundamental fact that no patch is accepted if the relevant maintainer has objections to it is still intact. And I am both the author and the maintainer of the BFS filesystem. Kind regards, Tigran