linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3.10 090/180] xfs: xfs_iflush

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]

Message-ID: <20160822052638.GA4557@1wt.eu>
Date:   Mon, 22 Aug 2016 07:26:38 +0200
From:   Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To:     Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.10 090/180] xfs: xfs_iflush_cluster fails to abort on
 error

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 07:18:26AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > Seriously, guys, pick up your act a bit and start talking between
> > yourselvesi and tracking regressions and fixes so the burden of
> > catching known reported and fixed problems with backports doesn't
> > rely on the upstream developers noticing the problem when hundreds
> > of patches for random stable kernels go past on lkml every week...
> 
> We definitely do exchange quite a bit and I pick patches from 3.14 for
> 3.10, but sometimes I can simply pick the original one for various
> reasons (eg: I if had queued its upstream ID earlier). That's also why
> the review process helps. I'm sincerely sorry that I failed on this one
> and that you had to deal with it again, I'm going to fix it now.

I've just checked, and this time I correctly picked the patches from
3.14, so much that I have the faulty one (this one) and its fix (patch
100/180). Admittedly I can merge them together so that if someone wants
to pick it alone they're not left with a broken patch.

Willy