On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 at 16:13, Qian Cai <cai@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On 12/26/18 7:02 AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 at 03:35, Qian Cai <cai@xxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> a0fc5578f1d (efi: Let kmemleak ignore false positives) is no longer > >> needed due to efi_mem_reserve_persistent() uses __get_free_page() > >> instead where kmemelak is not able to track regardless. Otherwise, > >> kernel reported "kmemleak: Trying to color unknown object at > >> 0xffff801060ef0000 as Black" > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Qian Cai <cai@xxxxxx> > > > > Why are you sending this to -mmotm? > > > > Andrew, please disregard this patch. This is EFI/tip material. > > Well, I'd like to primarily develop on the -mmotm tree as it fits in a > sweet-spot where the mainline is too slow and linux-next is too chaotic. > > The bug was reproduced and the patch was tested on -mmotm. If for every bugs > people found in -mmtom, they have to check out the corresponding sub-system tree > and reproduce/verify the bug over there, that is quite a burden to bear. > Yes. But you know what? We all have our burden to bear, and shifting this burden to someone else, in this case the subsystem maintainer who typically deals with a sizable workload already, is not a very nice thing to do. > That's why sub-system maintainers are copied on those patches, so they can > decide to fix directly in the sub-system tree instead of -mmotm, and then it > will propagate to -mmotm one way or another. > Please stop sending EFI patches if you can't be bothered to test/reproduce against the EFI tree. Thanks, Ard.
