[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <070DAF41-4DD5-4F20-B9F1-3B472147C499@mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 10:49:57 -0400
From: Theodore Tso <tytso@....EDU>
To: Greg Freemyer <greg.freemyer@...il.com>
Cc: Kay Diederichs <kay.diederichs@...-konstanz.de>,
"Jayson R. King" <dev@...sonking.com>,
Stable team <stable@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.27.y 1/3] ext4: Use our own write_cache_pages()
On Jun 1, 2010, at 9:54 AM, Greg Freemyer wrote:
>
> It has always been marked experimental in 2.6.27, not stable so I'm
> totally lost about this effort.
>
> See http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v2.6.27.47/fs/Kconfig
This is one of the things that confuses me, actually. Why is it that there are a number of people who want to use ext4 on 2.6.27? Even the enterprise distro's have moved on; SLES 11 SP1 upgraded their users from 2.6.27 to 2.6.32, for example. I wonder if it's time to start a new "stable anchor point" around 2.6.32, given that Ubuntu's latest Long-Term Stable (Lucid LTS) is based on 2.6.32, as is SLES 11 SP1. The RHEL 6 beta is also based on 2.6.32. (And I just spent quite a bit of time over the past week backporting a lot of ext4 bug fixes to 2.6.32.y :-)
If there are people who want to work on trying to backport more ext4 fixes to 2.6.27, they're of course free to do so. I am really curious as to *why*, though.
Regards,
-- Ted
--
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