On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 2:12 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 13:50:30 -0800 (PST) Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I'm not seeing anything in the [1/2] changelog which indicates that a > > > backport is needed. IOW, > > > > Correct: it's just changing the errno for some racy cases from "you're > > wrong, don't bother me again" to "it might be worth having another go": > > not fixing an instability, as 2/2 was. > > > > > > > > # cat .signature > > > When fixing a bug, please describe the end-user visible effects of that bug. > > > > If whatever's being run by the end-user is coded to try again on -EAGAIN, > > then the end-user will less often see occasional unexplained failures. > > > > OK, thanks. I redid the changelog's final paragraph thusly: > > : In this situation, MADV_COLLAPSE returns -EINVAL when it should return > : -EAGAIN. This could cause userspace to conclude that the syscall failed, > : when it in fact could succeed by retrying. > This looks good to me. Thanks Andrew! Also thanks Hugh for being on the lookout for this patch -- I hastily read through my emails regarding which patches were merged where and had assumed this merged with 2/2. Also, apologies about the confusing v1 [1/2] and v2 [2/2] fiasco; in hindsight that probably wasn't the most decipherable thing to do :) Best, Zach
