Le 09/04/2022 à 05:25, Andrew Morton a écrit : > On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 09:24:58 +0200 Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Rebased on top of Linux 5.18-rc1 >> >> This is the mm part of the series that converts powerpc to default >> topdown mmap layout, for merge into v5.18 > > We're at 5.18-rc1. The 5.18 merge window has closed and we're in > fixes-only mode. Umm ... There must have been a misunderstanding then. I contacted you before the merge window, and your answer was: Le 11/03/2022 à 05:49, Andrew Morton a écrit : > > 5.18 isn't a problem. Perhaps you meant 5.17, which would be real tough. > > Can we take a look after 5.18-rc1? > > If there's a case to be made that these patches are needed by 5.18 > users then please let's make that case. Otherwise, this is 5.19-rc1 material. It's not really needed for 5.18. The idea was to merge that common part in 5.18 in order to minimise risks on conflicts. As far as I understand it often happens that changes of that kind get merged at the very end of the merge window or between rc1 and rc2. I was therefore not surprised that you offered to handle it past rc1. History at: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/cover/cover.1646847561.git.christophe.leroy@xxxxxxxxxx/#2856080 > > And if it is indeed all 5.19-rc1 material, then please carry all four > in the powerpc tree with Acked-by: Andrew Morton > <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>. Well, Michael was a bit unconfortable with doing it that way, see below: Le 11/03/2022 à 05:26, Michael Ellerman a écrit : > > Yeah I didn't pick it up because the mm changes don't have many acks and > I'm always nervous about carrying generic mm changes. > > It would be my preference if Andrew could take 2-5 through mm for v5.18, > but it is quite late, so I'm not sure how he will feel about that. > > Arguably 2, 3, 4 do very little. It's only patch 5 that has much effect, > and it has a reviewed-by from Catalin at least. Michael, is it now ok for you to merge it via powerpc tree with Andrew's Ack ? > > Also, [4/4] has a cc:stable. This is a bit odd because -stable > candidates should be standalone patches, staged ahead of all > for-next-merge-window material, so we can get them merged up quickly. > > More oddly, [4/4]'s changelog provides no explanation for why the patch > should be considered for backporting. > That was a request from Catalin from ARM64: Le 04/01/2022 à 17:21, Catalin Marinas a écrit : > I wonder whether we should add a fixes tag (or at least the cc stable): > > Fixes: f6795053dac8 ("mm: mmap: Allow for "high" userspace addresses") > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 5.0.x > > I think the original commit should have changed > hugetlb_get_unmapped_area() to have the same behaviour as > arch_get_unmapped_area(). Steve, any thoughts? > > FWIW, > > Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> From https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/patch/db238c1ca2d46e33c57328f8d450f2563e92f8c2.1639736449.git.christophe.leroy@xxxxxxxxxx/ I can try and see whether this can be moved in front of the other patches. Thanks Christophe
