On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 09:28:41AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 04:49:43PM +0200, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Since patch #7 and #8 from the series: > > > > [PATCH v1 00/25] seqlock: Extend seqcount API with associated locks > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200519214547.352050-1-a.darwish@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > are now pending on the lockdep/x86 IRQ state tracking patch series: > > > > [PATCH 00/14] x86/entry: disallow #DB more and x86/entry lockdep/nmi > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200529212728.795169701@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > [PATCH v3 0/5] lockdep: Change IRQ state tracking to use per-cpu variables > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200529213550.683440625@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > This is a repost only of the seqcount_t call sites bugfixes that were on > > top of the seqlock patch series. > > > > These fixes are independent, and can thus be merged on their own. I'm > > reposting them now so they can at least hit -rc2 or -rc3. > > I'm confused on what I should do with patch 6 here for dma-buf. Looks like > just a good cleanup/prep work, so I'd queue it for linux-next and 5.9, but > sounds like you want this in earlier. Do you need this in 5.8-rc for some > work meant for 5.9? Will this go in through some topic branch directly? > Should I apply it? > > Patch itself lgtm, I'm just confused what I should do with it. > My apologies for the confusion. The cover letter is indeed misleading w.r.t. the dma-buf patch. It isn't a bugfix, so it shouldn't hit -rc. Since without this patch compiling the seqcount series will fail, it will be best to merge it through tip instead. So all I need for now is a reviewed-by tag :) I will forwoard it to the tip tree afterwards. Thanks, -- Ahmed S. Darwish Linutronix GmbH
