Re: [PATCH 3.10 14/46] d_walk() might skip too much
From: Jari Ruusu
Date: Sat Jun 20 2015 - 03:41:27 EST
On 6/19/15, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
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
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.
Jari Ruusu 4096R/8132F189 12D6 4C3A DCDA 0AA4 27BD ACDF F073 3C80 8132 F189
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/