| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 21:26:09 -0700 From: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com> To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> Cc: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>, xfs@....sgi.com, Brian Foster <bfoster@...hat.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com> Subject: Re: xfstests failures with xfs, dax and v4.4-rc3 On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 09:33:33AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 09:54:58AM -0700, Ross Zwisler wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 02:39:32PM -0700, Ross Zwisler wrote: > > > I've verified that this fixes all three failing xfstests reported in this mail. > > > Thanks! > > > > Hey Dave, > > > > Are you planning on pushing this fix for v4.4? > > No plans to right now - ENOSPC is a corner case that most users > won't be anywhere near, especially for experimental functionality on > hardware nobody actually has.... Really? I realize that it may be a case that most users won't actually hit, but it is a 5 line change that fixes four xfstests regressions between v4.3 and v4.4 for my DAX testing... Is there a strong reason *not* to push it in the v4.4 cycle? I'm trying to clear up all xfstests differences between DAX and non-DAX, and this would help quite a bit. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists