On Tue, 2013-05-14 at 15:25 +0200, 'Lars Ellenberg' wrote:
> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 01:56:55PM +0100, Luis Henriques wrote:
> > On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 08:14:47AM +0900, Jonghwan Choi wrote:
> > > This patch looks like it should be in the 3.9-stable tree, should we apply
> > > it?
> >
> > This se
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 01:56:55PM +0100, Luis Henriques wrote:
> On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 08:14:47AM +0900, Jonghwan Choi wrote:
> > This patch looks like it should be in the 3.9-stable tree, should we apply
> > it?
>
> This seems to be applicable to older kernels as well (starting with
> 3.0 at l
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 08:14:47AM +0900, Jonghwan Choi wrote:
> This patch looks like it should be in the 3.9-stable tree, should we apply
> it?
This seems to be applicable to older kernels as well (starting with
3.0 at least).
I'm queuing it for 3.5.
Cheers,
--
Luis
>
> --
>
Yes, please.
> This patch looks like it should be in the 3.9-stable tree, should we apply
> it?
>
> --
>
> From: "Philipp Reisner "
>
> commit 7c689e63a847316c1b2500f86891b0a574ce7e69 upstream
>
> With an automatic after split-brain recovery policy of
> "after-sb-1pri call-pri-
This patch looks like it should be in the 3.9-stable tree, should we apply
it?
--
From: "Philipp Reisner "
commit 7c689e63a847316c1b2500f86891b0a574ce7e69 upstream
With an automatic after split-brain recovery policy of
"after-sb-1pri call-pri-lost-after-sb",
when trying to drbd_
5 matches
Mail list logo
