Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 11 Aug 2010 10:56:30 +0200 | From | Stefan Bader <> | Subject | Re: [stable] [Stable-review] [116/165] ext4: dont return to userspace after freezing the fs with a mutex held |
| |
On 08/10/2010 10:16 PM, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 11:00:43AM +0200, Stefan Bader wrote: >> On 08/07/2010 03:38 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: >>>> On Mon, 02 Aug 2010, Greg KH wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 12:02:45PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>>>>> On 08/02/2010 07:04 AM, Stefan Bader wrote: >>>>>>> We have reports about this patch breaking lvm snapshhots. Eric, there is a patch >>>>>>> mentioned which is supposed to fix things but its not upstream, yet. >>>>>>> Do you know what happened to that? >>>>>> right, patch below is needed to fix things. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ted just acked it on the list recently; Greg, I'd either drop 116/165 >>>>>> for now, or include the patch below which should be upstream soon... >>>>> I can't take anything that isn't upstream yet. >>>>> >>>>> And I just released with this patch in the kernel, should I do a revert >>>>> and do a new release? >>>> >>>> Any answers on this? >>>> >>> >>> Yes, I'd revert it for now, I'm afraid, if the other patch isn't upstream >>> yet. >>> >>> Sorry about that, >>> >>> -Eric >> >> Upstream as of now (same SHA1 as in linux-next): >> >> >From 437f88cc031ffe7f37f3e705367f4fe1f4be8b0f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net> >> Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 17:33:29 -0400 >> Subject: [PATCH] (pre-stable) ext4: fix freeze deadlock under IO > > It looks like I can't drop the original one, as this patch builds on it. > So I'll just queue this one up. > > Should it also go into other -stable releases (like .35 and/or .34 -stable?) >
Final call would be Eric/Ted but as far as I can see:
.34: not for now (patch that causes regression not backported there (yet)) .35: yes (offending patch has been in 2.6.35-rc1)
-Stefan
> thanks, > > greg k-h
| |