* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
Indeed!
> 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.
Thanks - I'm dropping the commit from efi/urgent.
Ingo
