[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
[dm-devel] Re: RFC: dm patches for 2.6.16
- From: Adrian Bunk <bunk stusta de>
- To: dm-devel redhat com, Jeff Mahoney <jeffm suse com>, Alasdair G Kergon <agk redhat com>, Michal Miroslaw <mirq-linux rere qmqm pl>, Daniel Kobras <kobras linux de>, Neil Brown <neilb suse de>, Mark McLoughlin <markmc redhat com>
- Cc:
- Subject: [dm-devel] Re: RFC: dm patches for 2.6.16
- Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 23:13:27 +0100
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 08:25:59PM +0000, Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 04:24:44AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > The following attached patches seem to make sense for 2.6.16:
> >
> > Added in 2.6.17.11 and 2.6.18:
> > dm: BUG/OOPS fix
> >
> > Added in 2.6.17.12 and 2.6.18:
> > dm snapshot: unify chunk_size
> > dm: add module ref counting
> > dm: mirror sector offset fix
> > dm: Fix deadlock under high i/o load in raid1 setup.
> >
> > Added in 2.6.19:
> > dm snapshot: fix metadata writing when suspending
> >
> > Do these patches look OK for 2.6.16,
>
> Yes.
Thanks, I've applied them.
> > Are there any critical patches I missed?
>
> The general rule for patches I send to linux-kernel is that any patch with
> 'fix' in the title is a candidate for stable trees (together with any
> earlier patches they depend upon).
I do _sometimes_ find patches for 2.6.16 on linux-kernel.
I'm regularly going through the patches that have been applied to
-stable.
AFAIK Greg and Chris only apply patches to -stable that were explicitely
sent to stable kernel org
It would therefore be good, if you could send such patches explicitely
to stable kernel org
> Alasdair
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]