Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 09 Jan 2015 23:20:24 +0100 | From | Richard Weinberger <> | Subject | Re: Fastmap update v2 (pile 1) |
| |
Am 09.01.2015 um 23:09 schrieb Ezequiel Garcia: >> All of Pile1, 2, 3 and 4. :-) >> One or tow patches are preparations for the real fix but obviously you'll need them >> too. >> The rest are enhancements and cleanups. > > What do you mean by "the rest"?
Pile 5, 6, and 7.
>> As I wrote before I've structured the patch set in a way to make backporting easy. >> >>> For bugfixes, having a detailed explanation of the problem the commit is >>> meant to fix would be better as well. >> >> Okay, I'll add the horror stories to these patches. >> > > I know it's a real pain, but if you can add a Fixes: tag, it would > certainly help Artem track down the bug. The good thing is that you get > the -stable hassle for free.
We cannot tag these as stable, first I have to inject old fastamp fixes into -stable. Two years ago Artem and I decided that fastmap as experimental feature does not need -stable backports. It turned out that this was horrible wrong and stupid.
>>> This patchset seems to have stalled, so perhaps having this information >>> would help Artem to pick the ones that you point as fixes, before we >>> miss another cycle. >> >> The question is, shall I wait for Artem or resend again? > > Hm, well, given we are just a handful of developers, and we are all time > constrained, maybe we could focus on the first two piles for now: > > Pile 1, November 24, https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/24/324 > Pile 2, November 30, https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/30/50
Hmm, I'm not sure whether it is a good idea to resend Pile1 and Pile2. I've currently around 50 patches on linux-mtd floating around (nett, without resends). I fear it will just increase the mess we already have.
I really would like to hear what Artems plans are. Actually I resent and split up the first series upon his request.
Thanks, //richard
| |