linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v7 00/22] fs: enhanced writeback error reporting with errseq

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 20 Jun 2017 09:25:07 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        tytso@....edu, axboe@...nel.dk, mawilcox@...rosoft.com,
        ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com, corbet@....net,
        Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
        "Darrick J . Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
        Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@...hat.com>,
        Eryu Guan <eguan@...hat.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 00/22] fs: enhanced writeback error reporting with
 errseq_t (pile #1)

Hi Jeff,

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 12:23:46 -0400 Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> If there are no major objections to this set, I'd like to have
> linux-next start picking it up to get some wider testing. What's the
> right vehicle for this, given that it touches stuff all over the tree?
> 
> I can see 3 potential options:
> 
> 1) I could just pull these into the branch that Stephen is already
> picking up for file-locks in my tree
> 
> 2) I could put them into a new branch, and have Stephen pull that one in
> addition to the file-locks branch
> 
> 3) It could go in via someone else's tree entirely (Andrew or Al's
> maybe?)
> 
> I'm fine with any of these. Anyone have thoughts?

Given that this is a one off development, either 1 or 3 (in Al's tree)
would be fine.  2 is a possibility (but people forget to ask me to
remove one shot trees :-()

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell