On 09.11.2016 16:32, Lars Ellenberg wrote: > On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 09:52:04AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>> This should go into 4.9, >>>> and into all stable branches since and including v4.0, >>>> which is the first to contain the exposing change. >>>> >>>> It is correct for all stable branches older than that as well >>>> (which contain the DRBD driver; which is 2.6.33 and up). >>>> >>>> It requires a small "conflict" resolution for v4.4 and earlier, with v4.5 >>>> we dropped the comment block immediately preceding the kernel_sendmsg(). >>>> >>>> Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org >>>> Cc: v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk >>>> Cc: christoph.lechleit...@iteg.at >>>> Cc: wolfgang.g...@iteg.at >>>> Reported-by: Christoph Lechleitner <christoph.lechleit...@iteg.at> >>>> Tested-by: Christoph Lechleitner <christoph.lechleit...@iteg.at> >>>> Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger <rich...@nod.at> >>>> Signed-off-by: Lars Ellenberg <lars.ellenb...@linbit.com> >>> >>> Changing my patch is perfectly fine, but please clearly state it. >>> I.e. by adding something like that before your S-o-b. >>> [Lars: Massaged patch to match my personal taste...] >> > >> Lars, are you sending a new one? If you do, add the stable tag as well. > > So my "change" against his original patch was > - rv = kernel_sendmsg(sock, &msg, &iov, 1, size - sent); > + rv = kernel_sendmsg(sock, &msg, &iov, 1, iov.iov_len); > to make it "more obviously correct" from looking just at the one line > without even having to read the context. And a more verbose commit message. > > If that requires yet additional noise, sure, so be it :) > > Should I sent two patches, one that applies to 4.5 and later, > and one that applies to 2.6.33 ... 4.4, or are you or stable > willing to resolve the trivial "missing comment block" conflict yourself?
BTW: Why did you drop the "Fixes:" tag too? Thanks, //richard
