On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 1:41 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 13:33:19 -0700 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Andrew, is "mm: handle userfaults under VMA lock" merged into > > mm-stable? I could not find it and in fact the whole "Per-VMA lock > > support for swap and userfaults" patchset > > (https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAJuCfpHSFikZ=h34yS980BmUP5M=+j6rB4_b-q7MCc10Xs24+w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/) > > seems to be missing in mm-stable. That's problematic because Matthew's > > "Handle most file-backed faults under the VMA lock" patchset > > (https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230724185410.1124082-1-willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/) > > requires at least one patch from my patchset to work correctly, this > > one: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230630211957.1341547-4-surenb@xxxxxxxxxx/. > > > > An additional note, > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230812002033.1002367-1-willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > is fixing a known issue in "Handle most file-backed faults under the > > VMA lock" patchset and it's missing from mm-stable too. As Matthew > > mentioned in that patch, ideally it should be placed before "mm: > > handle faults that merely update the accessed bit under the VMA lock" > > > > I was unaware of these dependencies. I didn't notice the reordering in mm-unstable but now I see them reordered there as well. Should have warned you earlier :( > > All the above-mentioned patches are in mm-unstable, so we have > bisection holes. > > If I get sent a replacement patch series, I'll move it to > back-of-queue, because I'll assume all previous testing is invalidated. > I assume this is how this misordering came about. If I get sent > little -fix patches, I don't do this reordering. Possibly the recent riscv fixup for my patch series reordered things... Reordering my patchset before Matthew's would fix that bisection hole but up to you. I was just worried that if one patchset is merged without the other, this hole would produce multiple issues.
