On Sat, 10 May 2014 22:46:35 Ben Hutchings wrote: > I just dislike kernel bugs being addressed by 'use > this out-of-tree package instead'. Some projects with both in-tree and > out-of-tree releases seem to encourage this rather than maintaining > their in-tree code properly. (But I'm not saying ceph is among those; > I'm not familiar enough with it to make a judgement.) I share your concerns and I think there is no such risk here. Upstream don't do standalone module development and I had to extract module(s) sources from kernel tree. As far as I'm aware all Ceph modules development is done in-tree. Just in case I commited "README.source" file with note "not suitable for stable". > If that has been committed to an official repository for > ceph then I think I can cherry-pick it for sid. Please report a bug > against the kernel to request this. I'll consider this but I hope that won't be necessary if upstream make sure that fix is included to point release of Linux_3.14 in a timely manner. Thank you. -- Cheers, Dmitry Smirnov.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.