linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] bcache changes for 3.17

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:	Mon, 8 Sep 2014 08:26:34 -0700
From:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:	Francis Moreau <francis.moro@...il.com>,
	Kent Overstreet <kmo@...erainc.com>,
	Peter Kieser <peter@...ser.ca>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org, stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] bcache changes for 3.17

On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 04:21:48PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 09/05/2014 03:45 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 09:31:06AM +0200, Francis Moreau wrote:
> >> On 08/10/2014 09:54 AM, Peter Kieser wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 2014-08-05 9:58 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>>> On 08/04/2014 10:33 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> >>>>> Hey Jens, here's the pull request for 3.17 - typically late, but lots of tasty
> >>>>> fixes in this one :)
> >>>> Normally I'd say no, but since it's basically just fixes, I guess we can
> >>>> pull it in. But generally, it has to be in my hands a week before this,
> >>>> so it can simmer a bit in for-next before going in...
> >>>>
> >>> Are these fixes going to be backported to 3.10 or other stable releases?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Could you please answer this question ?
> >>
> >> If you don't want to maintain bcache for stable kernels (I can
> >> understand that), can you mark it at least as unstable/experimental
> >> stuff since it really is ?
> > 
> > WTF?
> > 
> > Just because a maintainer/developer doesn't want to do anything for the
> > stable kernel releases does _NOT_ mean the code is
> > "unstable/expreimental" at all.
> 
> That's not what he is saying at all. The code IS unstable in 3.10. And
> the fact that nothing goes to stable for bcache, the situation wasn't
> likely to change for 3.10. Nobody is saying "Oh nothing goes to stable,
> lets mark it experimental".

Sorry, but with only the context above which is what I was sent, you can
see how I can be confused here...

greg k-h
--
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/