On 6/26/24 5:05 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 25.06.24 20:58, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 20:51:13 +0200 David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I could split them and feed 1&2 into 6.10-rcX and 3&4 into 6.11-rc1. A
problem with this approach is that we're putting a basically untested
combination into -stable: 1&2 might have bugs which were accidentally
fixed in 3&4. A way to avoid this is to add cc:stable to all four
patches.
What are your thoughts on this matter?
Especially 4 should also be CC stable, so likely we should just do it
for all of them.
Fine. A Fixes: for 3 & 4 would be good. Otherwise we're potentially
asking for those to be backported further than 1 & 2, which seems
wrong.
4 is shmem fix, which likely dates back a bit longer.
Then again, by having different Fixes: in the various patches we're
suggesting that people split the patch series apart as they slot things
into the indicated places. In other words, it's not a patch series at
all - it's a sprinkle of independent fixes. Are we OK thinking of it
in that fashion?
The common themes is "pagecache cannot handle > order-11", #1-3 tackle "ordinary" file THP, #4 tackles shmem THP.
So I'm not sure we should be splitting it apart. It's just that shmem THP arrived before file THP :)
I rechecked the history, it's a bit hard to have precise fix tag for PATCH[4].
Please let me know if you have a better one for PATCH[4].
#4
Fixes: 800d8c63b2e9 ("shmem: add huge pages support")
Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxx # v4.10+
Fixes: 552446a41661 ("shmem: Convert shmem_add_to_page_cache to XArray")
Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxx # v4.20+
#3
Fixes: 793917d997df ("mm/readahead: Add large folio readahead")
Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxx # v5.18+
#2
Fixes: 4687fdbb805a ("mm/filemap: Support VM_HUGEPAGE for file mappings")
Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxx # v5.18+
#1
Fixes: 793917d997df ("mm/readahead: Add large folio readahead")
Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxx # v5.18+
I probably need to move PATCH[3] before PATCH[2] since PATCH[1] and PATCH[2]
point to same commit.
Thanks,
Gavin
