On 11/19/24 15:25, Liam R. Howlett wrote: > * Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [241119 09:17]: >> On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 03:32:14PM -0500, Liam R. Howlett wrote: >> > Okay, before I get yelled at... >> > >> > This commit is only necessary for 6.12.y until Lorenzo's other fixes to >> > older stables land (and I'll have to figure out what to do in each). >> > >> > The commit will not work on mm-unstable, because it doesn't exist due to >> > refactoring. >> > >> > The commit does not have a tag about "upstream commit" because there >> > isn't one - the closest thing I could point to does not have a stable >> > git id. >> > >> > So here I am with a fix for a kernel that was released a few hours ago >> > that is not necessary in v6.13, for a bug that's out there on syzkaller. >> > >> > Also, it's very unlikely to happen unless you inject failures like >> > syzkaller. But hey, pretty decent turn-around on finding a fix - so >> > that's a rosy outlook. >> >> Why isn't this needed in 6.13.y? What's going to be different in there >> that this isn't needed? > > The code has been refactored and avoids the scenario. I'd name the > refactoring commit as the upstream commit, but it does not have a stable > git id as it's in mm-unstable. So I'm at a bit of a loss of how to > follow the process. Is it not in mm-stable now, given we're in a merge window? Anyway AFAIU if the stable-specific fix is completely different from the upstream refactoring, we don't even try to pretend it's the same "commit XYZ upstream" no? >> >> Do you just want me to take this for the 6.12.y tree now? I'll be glad >> to, just confused a bit. > > Yes, please. > > > Thanks, > Liam
