On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 21:34:39 +0900 (JST), Ryusuke Konishi wrote: > On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 10:16:46 +0200, Andreas Rohner wrote: >> On 2014-09-16 15:57, Ryusuke Konishi wrote: >>> On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 10:38:29 +0200, Andreas Rohner wrote: >>>>> I'd appreciate your help on testing the patch for some old kernels. >>>>> (And, please declare a "Tested-by" tag in the reply mail, if the test >>>>> is ok). >>>> >>>> Sure I have everything set up. Which kernels do I have to test? Was >>>> commit 136e877 backported? I presume at least stable and some of the >>>> longterm kernels on https://www.kernel.org/... >>> >>> The commit 136e877 was merged to v3.10 and backported to stable trees >>> of earlier kernels. But, most of earlier stable trees are no longer >>> maintained. Well maintained trees are the following longterm kernels: >>> >>> - 3.4.y (backported commit 136e877) >>> - 3.10.y >>> - 3.14.y >>> >>> I think these three kernels are worty to be tested. >> >> I tested it on all stable kernels including 3.4.x, 3.10.x, 3.14.x. The >> bug is present in all of them and the patch fixes it. The patch also >> applies cleanly on all kernels. I sent it again yesterday, and added the >> Tested-by: tag.
One thing I have a question. Is the original issue that commit 136e877 fixed still OK ? If you haven't tested it, I apprecicate if you examine the test for the prior issue. Thanks, Ryusuke Konishi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
