On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 03:58:47 +0000 HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也) <naoya.horiguchi@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Should Tony's patchset also be targeted to -stable? If so then OK. > > Yes, that's fine. And I think that the first two patches > (mm-memory-failure-use-a-mutex-to-avoid-memory_failure-races.pathc and > mmhwpoison-return-ehwpoison-to-denote-that-the-page-has-already-been-poisoned.patch) > can be marked to stable, but 3/3 (mmhwpoison-send-sigbus-with-error-virutal-address.patch) > may not because it's a little too large and not the main part of the fixes. OK, thanks, I queued mm-memory-failure-use-a-mutex-to-avoid-memory_failure-races.patch mm-memory-failure-use-a-mutex-to-avoid-memory_failure-races-fix.patch mmhwpoison-return-ehwpoison-to-denote-that-the-page-has-already-been-poisoned.patch # mm-hwpoison-do-not-lock-page-again-when-me_huge_page-successfully-recovers.patch for 5.13 with cc:stable and mmhwpoison-send-sigbus-with-error-virutal-address.patch mmhwpoison-send-sigbus-with-error-virutal-address-fix.patch for 5.14.
