On Sun, 2020-04-26 at 18:07 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > Control: tags -1 + confirmed > > On Sun, 2020-04-26 at 15:52 +0000, Mo Zhou wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 03:25:22PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > > On Wed, 2020-04-22 at 05:21 +0000, Mo Zhou wrote: > > > > The whole fix involes two parts: a part goes to src:zfs-linux > > > > and > > > > the > > > > other goes to src:spl-linux. Now that the updated src:spl-linux > > > > is > > > > already uploaded, and I'm now asking for the permission to > > > > upload > > > > the > > > > updated src:zfs-linux. Which includes two upstream commits > > > > fixing > > > > potential deadlock issues. > > > > > > What happens if a user tries using the current spl-dkms with the > > > newer > > > zfs-dkms, or vice versa? > > > > I forgot to add Depends: spl-dkms (>= 0.7.12-2+deb10u1, s-p-u) into > > the debdiff of zfs-linux. > > OK. With that change included, please feel free to go ahead. > > > Actually zfs-linux (= 0.7.12-2+deb10u1, buster) have no problem to > > build atop spl-linux (= 0.7.12-2, buster) or (= 0.7.12-2+deb10u1, > > s- > > p-u); while zfs-linux (= 0.7.12-2+deb10u2, s-p-u) will FTBFS atop > > spl-linux (= 0.7.12-2, buster) > > > > So it's fine to accept spl-linux now, without causing any issues?
Ping? (On both this question and the zfs-linux upload.) The window for getting fixes into 10.4 closes during this weekend. Regards, Adam
