[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <689f677b84b484636b673b362b17a6501a056968.camel@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2023 14:14:14 +0100
From: André Draszik <andre.draszik@...aro.org>
To: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>
Cc: Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>,
"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul Lawrence <paullawrence@...gle.com>,
Daniel Rosenberg <drosen@...gle.com>,
Alessio Balsini <balsini@...roid.com>,
Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
Bernd Schubert <bschubert@....com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Revert "fuse: Apply flags2 only when userspace set
the FUSE_INIT_EXT"
On Fri, 2023-10-27 at 15:03 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> Again, upstream and downstream. There's a reason why some companies
> have upstream first policies: because it's less painful in the long
> run. Android having decided to go ahead and add that patch is not my
> problem, and I really really don't want to care.
>
> Having said all that, if there's a regression that someone reports
> for
> upstream flags (even on a vendor kernel), I'll just revert the patch
> right away.
The patch in question has broken all users that use the higher flags
and that don't use your version of libfuse, not just Android. You're
filtering them out now when you didn't at the time that those
('official) high flags were added. There are a couple more high flags
than just the one that Android added.
Cheers,
Andre'
Powered by blists - more mailing lists