[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPhsuW7FREFLrAnt2iYDRoJG0d=OXm-5vy3OCJ7MOJDp2SE9GQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 01:46:40 -0700
From: Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, linux-raid <linux-raid@...r.kernel.org>,
Li Nan <linan666@...weicloud.com>
Cc: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.10 033/238] md: implement ->set_read_only to hook into
BLKROSET processing
Hi Li Nan,
Could you please look into this (back port 9674f54e41ff to older stable
kernels)? If there is no clean back port, I would recommend we not do
the back port.
Thanks,
Song
On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 12:40 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 07:26:43AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 02:04:35AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >> How did we end up backporting all these block layer API changes?
> >
> > They were brought in as a dependency for 9674f54e41ff ("md: Don't clear
> > MD_CLOSING when the raid is about to stop").
> >
> > It's possible to work around bringing them during backport, but I
> > preferred to bring the dependencies instead.
>
> I really don't see what these giant backports bring us. If people
> want all the changes they'd just be better off on a modern kernel
> rather than these frankenkernels. The automatic backporting is
> gettind way out of hand. If the MD maintainers want
> 9674f54e41ff, maybe they can send a tailor made backport?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists