I can confirm that just on the patch-level only two need backporting, the rest applies as is and I have regenerated them to match the packaging requirements. The backport-adaptations themselves are minimal.
From the content I guess it is complex enough that nobody can be fully sure.
I'm still reading it ...
Until then a few questions:
- I wonder if we'd also want/need dc293f6 "scsi: fix sense code for EREMOTEIO" (to ensure this kind of ioerror gets to the guest as well) - what do you think?
- I also wondered about 424740d "scsi-disk: do not complete requests early for rerror/werror=ignore" but we do not have 40dce4ee applied so that should be ok
I can confirm that just on the patch-level only two need backporting, the rest applies as is and I have regenerated them to match the packaging requirements. The backport- adaptations themselves are minimal.
From the content I guess it is complex enough that nobody can be fully sure.
I'm still reading it ...
Until then a few questions: werror= ignore" but we do not have 40dce4ee applied so that should be ok
- I wonder if we'd also want/need dc293f6 "scsi: fix sense code for EREMOTEIO" (to ensure this kind of ioerror gets to the guest as well) - what do you think?
- I also wondered about 424740d "scsi-disk: do not complete requests early for rerror/