Re: [PATCH] MD: Quickly return errors if too many devices have failed.

[PATCH] MD: Quickly return errors if too many devices have failed. · Jonathan Brassow <hidden> · 2013-03-13
Re: [PATCH] MD: Quickly return errors if too many devices have failed. · NeilBrown <hidden> · 2013-03-17
Re: [PATCH] MD: Quickly return errors if too many devices have failed. · Brassow Jonathan <hidden> · 2013-03-18
Re: [PATCH] MD: Quickly return errors if too many devices have failed. · Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk <hidden> · 2013-03-18
Re: [PATCH] MD: Quickly return errors if too many devices have failed. · Brassow Jonathan <hidden> · 2013-03-19
Re: [PATCH] MD: Quickly return errors if too many devices have failed. · Brassow Jonathan <hidden> · 2013-03-19
Re: [PATCH] MD: Quickly return errors if too many devices have failed. · NeilBrown <hidden> · 2013-03-20
Re: [PATCH] MD: Quickly return errors if too many devices have failed. · Brassow Jonathan <hidden> · 2013-03-20
Re: [PATCH] MD: Quickly return errors if too many devices have failed. · NeilBrown <hidden> · 2013-03-20
Re: [PATCH] MD: Quickly return errors if too many devices have failed. · Brassow Jonathan <hidden> · 2013-03-21
Re: [PATCH] MD: Quickly return errors if too many devices have failed. · NeilBrown <hidden> · 2013-03-28
Re: [PATCH] MD: Quickly return errors if too many devices have failed. · Brassow Jonathan <hidden> · 2013-04-19
Re: [PATCH] MD: Quickly return errors if too many devices have failed. · Brassow Jonathan <hidden> · 2013-03-21

From: Brassow Jonathan <hidden>
Date: 2013-03-21 14:01:22

On Mar 20, 2013, at 6:04 PM, NeilBrown wrote:

quoted

On a different topic, I've noticed the following commits in 'for-next':
 90584fc MD: Prevent sysfs operations on uninitialized kobjects
 e3620a3 MD RAID5: Avoid accessing gendisk or queue structs when not available
but these are not in 3.9.0-rc3.  They should make their way into 3.9.0 as well as 3.8.0.  (They apply cleanly to the 3.8 kernel, but I hadn't bothered to notify 'stable' - only mention the regression was introduced in 3.8-rc1.)

They are due to be sent to Linus today.
The second one is  tagged for -stable and will go to 3.8.x (I think 3.7.x is
closed).
The first isn't - my quick examination suggested that the current code is
safe but not ideal.  If you think it is appropriate for -stable  (i.e. fixes
a real bug that could hurt users) let me know why and I'll make sure it goes
to -stable.

Yes, the second is the important one.  We don't need the first backported to stable.

Thanks!
 brassow

`h`	back out one level
`j`	next message in thread
`k`	previous message in thread
`l`	drill in
`Esc`	close help / fold thread tree
`?`	toggle this help