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. 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.
