On 11/22/22 15:03, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2022 13:59:25 -0400 Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > >
> > > > While that's certainly valid, it's not the common use case with
> > > > hugetlb pages.
> > >
> > > FWIW, I did check with our product teams and they do not knowingly make use
> > > of private mappings without write. Of course, that is only a small and
> > > limited sample size.
> >
> > Yeah, if it is only this case I'm comfortable as well
> >
>
> So.... I am to slap a cc:stable on this patch and we're all good?
I think we will also need a Fixes tag. There are two options for this:
1) In this patch David rightly points out
"I assume this has been broken at least since 2014, when mm/gup.c came to
life. I failed to come up with a suitable Fixes tag quickly."
So, we could go with some old gup commit.
2) One of the benefits of this patch is silencing the warning introduced
by 1d8d14641fd9 ("mm/hugetlb: support write-faults in shared mappings").
So, we could use this for the tag. It is also more in line with David's
suggestion to "backport it into 6.0/6.1 to fix the warning".
My suggestion would be to use 1d8d14641fd9 for the fixes tag. However,
David may have a better suggestion/idea.
--
Mike Kravetz
