Re: How many people are using 2.6.16?

["Steve French (smfltc)" <smfltc@us.ibm.com>]

David Chinner wrote:

>On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 08:02:37AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>  
>
>>On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 06:36:48PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>The issue was somewhat confused by people certainly *reporting* it for 
>>>older kernels. Also, as part of the dirty bit cleanups and sanity 
>>>checkingwe did actually seem to fix a long-standing CIFS corruption (and 
>>>apparently reisertfs/XFS problems too).
>>>
>>>But the *common* case was actually introduced with 2.6.19, and 2.6.16 
>>>wouldn't be affected. 
>>>      
>>>
>>Thanks for the clarifications.
>>
>>Regarding the longstanding CIFS/reiserfs/XFS problems, it seems the 
>>status is:
>>    
>>
>....
>  
>
>>XFS:
>>fix not yet in your tree
>>    
>>
>
>With the WARN_ON() in cancel_dirty_page() removed:
>
>http://git2.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=ecdfc9787fe527491baefc22dce8b2dbd5b2908d
>
>XFS will behave exactly the same as 2.6.19 and previous releases.
>The patches I sent were only ever really workarounds to greatly
>reduce the race window that could lead to the warning being
>triggered.
>
>We really need Nick Piggin's invalidate/truncate/mmap race fixes to
>properly solve the XFS issues uncovered by Linus' changes. Given
>that we haven't had any reported cases of data corruption on XFS
>(and I couldn't trigger any even when seeing the warnings) I think
>we are fairly safe just maintaining the status quo and waiting the
>right fix to make it's way into the tree....
>
>Cheers,
>
>Dave.
>  
>
We did have one bug report of data corruption in cifs on older kernels 
copying large files which this resolves,
but 2.6.16 seems far enough to go back.