Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751837AbeAQAnm (ORCPT + 1 other); Tue, 16 Jan 2018 19:43:42 -0500 Received: from mx.ewheeler.net ([66.155.3.69]:48378 "EHLO mail.ewheeler.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750750AbeAQAnk (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Jan 2018 19:43:40 -0500 Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 00:43:35 +0000 (UTC) From: Eric Wheeler X-X-Sender: lists@mail.ewheeler.net To: Christoph Hellwig cc: drbd-dev@lists.linbit.com, stable@vger.kernel.org, Philipp Reisner , Lars Ellenberg , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] drbd: fix discard_zeroes_if_aligned regression In-Reply-To: <20180116072615.GA3940@infradead.org> Message-ID: References: <15124635.GA4107@soda.linbit> <1516057231-21756-1-git-send-email-drbd-dev@lists.ewheeler.net> <20180116072615.GA3940@infradead.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (LRH 23 2013-08-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: On Mon, 15 Jan 2018, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > NAK. Calling a discard and expecting zeroing is simply buggy. But of course, that would be silly. We don't expect discard to zero---but we do expect discard to discard! > And double NAK for patches like this without a linux-block Cc. My appologies, I thought this was internal to DRBD. What is the general rule here? Should linux-block always be Cc'ed with a patch? -- Eric Wheeler