On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 6:22 AM Ard Biesheuvel
<ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I was hoping we could merge this patch (so we can backport it), but
> resolve the conflict by dropping the kmemleak_ignore() again [..]
Well, we'd drop the new #include line also, since it would be
pointless without the kmemleak_ignore().
End result: there would be nothing left. Better not to merge it at all.
It's easy enough to backport, and just say "done differently upstream
in commit 80424b02d42b ("efi: Reduce the amount of memblock
reservations for persistent allocations").
The stable tree doesn't require that the *same* commits be upstream,
it only requires that the fixes be upstream and Greg&al want a pointer
to the upstream fix just so that they know they're not fixing
something that might still be broken upstream.
See for example (just random googling)
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?id=37435f7e80ef9adc32a69013c18f135e3f434244
which shows that "fixed differently upstream" case and points to why.
Linus
