On 06/21/23 15:52, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 15:46:57 -0700 Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 06/21/23 15:39, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 15:19:58 -0700 Sidhartha Kumar <sidhartha.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > IMPORTANT NOTE FOR STABLE BACKPORTS: > > > > > This patch will apply cleanly to v6.3. However, due to the change of > > > > > filemap_get_folio() return values, it will not function correctly. This > > > > > patch must be modified for stable backports. > > > > > > > > This patch I sent previously can be used for the 6.3 backport: > > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/b5bd2b39-7e1e-148f-7462-9565773f6d41@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#me37b56ca89368dc8dda2a33d39f681337788d13c > > > > > > Are we suggesting that this be backported? If so, I'll add the cc:stable. > > > > > > Because -stable maintainers have been asked not to backport MM patches to > > > which we didn't add the cc:stable. > > > > Yes, we need to get a fix into 6.3 as well. > > > > The 'issue' with a backport is noted in the IMPORTANT NOTE above. > > > > My concern is that adding cc:stable will have it automatically picked up > > and this would make things worse than they are in 6.3. > > > > My 'plan' was to not add the cc:stable, but manually create a patch for > > 6.3 once this goes upstream. Honestly, I am not sure what is the best > > way to deal with this. I could also try to catch the email about the > > automatic backport and say 'no, use this new patch instead'. > > OK, how about I leave it without cc:stable, so you can send the 6.3 > version at a time of your choosing? Perfect -- Mike Kravetz
