Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753058AbbF0AwZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Jun 2015 20:52:25 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:47150 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752293AbbF0AwQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Jun 2015 20:52:16 -0400 Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 17:52:16 -0700 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Jari Ruusu Cc: Willy Tarreau , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, Al Viro Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.10 14/46] d_walk() might skip too much Message-ID: <20150627005216.GC29233@kroah.com> References: <20150613171118.GB13001@1wt.eu> <20150619195434.GA22717@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23+89 (0255b37be491) (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2175 Lines: 48 On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 10:41:14AM +0300, Jari Ruusu wrote: > On 6/19/15, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > I would much rather just include the "real" upstream patches, instead of > > an odd backport. > > > > Jari, can you just backport the above referenced patches instead and > > provide those backports? > > I won't do that, sorry. It is more complicated than you think. It would > involve backporting more VFS-re-write-patch-bombs than would be acceptable > to stable kernel branch. Above mentioned d_walk() function that Al Viro > modified in mainline don't even exist in 3.10.y and older brances. > > My understanding is that complete backport of above mentioned "deal with > deadlock in d_walk()" and "d_walk() might skip too much" patches to 3.10.y > branch is to apply all these patches: > > (a) backport of "deal with deadlock in d_walk()", by Ben Hutchings > (b) dcache: Fix locking bugs in backported "deal with deadlock in d_walk()" > (c) Al Viro's "d_walk() might skip too much" applied THREE times. > > Of those, you merged (a) and (b) to 3.10.76 stable, and one copy of (c) to > 3.10.80 stable. > > The problem is that you didn't realize that "deal with deadlock in d_walk()" > was applied to three different places in Ben Hutchings' backport, and that > latest Al Viro's fix had to be also applied to three different places. > Considering the sh*t that you have to deal with, nobody is blaming you for > that mistake. > > I am asking that you apply Al Viro's original "d_walk() might skip too much" > patch TWO more times to 3.10.y stable branch. On both times, your patch tool > will find the correct place of source file to modify, but with different > offsets each time. That's insane, and not how my tools work :( Can you provide the needed backport? If it was in an earlier email in this series, sorry, it's long gone from my mailbox, can you resend it? thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/