On Sat, Jul 8, 2023 at 12:23 PM Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 at 12:17, Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Do you want me to disable per-VMA locks by default as well? > > No. I seriously believe that if the per-vma locking is so broken that > it needs to be disabled in a development kernel, we should just admit > failure, and revert it all. > > And not in a "revert it for a later attempt" kind of way. > > So it would be a "revert it because it added insurmountable problems > that we couldn't figure out" thing that implies *not* trying it again > in that form at all, and much soul-searching before somebody decides > that they have a more maintainable model for it all. Got it. I hope that's not the case and so far we haven't received an indication that the fixes were insufficient. > > If stable decides that the fixes are not back-portable, and the whole > thing needs to be disabled for stable, that's one thing. But if we > decide that in mainline, it's a "this was a failure" thing. The patches applied cleanly to 6.4.y stable branch the last time I checked, so should not be a problem. Thanks, Suren. > > Linus
