On 16.09.20 09:47, Laurent Dufour wrote: > Le 16/09/2020 à 09:40, Greg Kroah-Hartman a écrit : >> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 09:29:22AM +0200, Laurent Dufour wrote: >>> Le 16/09/2020 à 08:33, Greg Kroah-Hartman a écrit : >>>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 03:26:24PM +0200, Laurent Dufour wrote: >>>>> The memmap_context enum is used to detect whether a memory operation is due >>>>> to a hot-add operation or happening at boot time. >>>>> >>>>> Make it general to the hotplug operation and rename it as meminit_context. >>>>> >>>>> There is no functional change introduced by this patch >>>>> >>>>> Suggested-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> --- >>>>> arch/ia64/mm/init.c | 6 +++--- >>>>> include/linux/mm.h | 2 +- >>>>> include/linux/mmzone.h | 11 ++++++++--- >>>>> mm/memory_hotplug.c | 2 +- >>>>> mm/page_alloc.c | 10 +++++----- >>>>> 5 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> <formletter> >>>> >>>> This is not the correct way to submit patches for inclusion in the >>>> stable kernel tree. Please read: >>>> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html >>>> for how to do this properly. >>>> >>>> </formletter> >>> >>> Hi Greg, >>> >>> I'm sorry, I read that document few days ago before sending the series and >>> again this morning, but I can't figure out what I missed (following option >>> 1). >>> >>> Should the "Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" tag be on each patch of the series >>> even if the whole series has been sent to stable ? >> >> That should be on any patch you expect to show up in a stable kernel >> release. >> >>> Should the whole series sent again (v4) instead of sending a fix as a reply to ? >> >> It's up to the maintainer what they want, but as it is, this patch is >> not going to end up in stable kernel release (which it looks like is the >> right thing to do...) > > Thanks a lot Greg. > > I'll send that single patch again with the Cc: stable tag. I think Andrew can add that when sending upstream. While a single patch to fix + backport would be nicer, I don't see an easy (!ugly) way to achieve the same without this cleanup. 1. We could rework patch #2 to pass a simple boolean flag, and a follow-on patch to pass the context. Not sure if that's any better. 2. We could rework patch #2 to pass memmap_context first, and modify patch #1 to also rename this instance. Maybe 2. might be reasonable (not sure if worth the trouble). @Greg any preference? > > I don't think the patch 3 need to be backported, it doesn't fix any issue and > with the patch 1 and 2 applied, the BUG_ON should no more be triggered easily. Agreed. -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
|