On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 12:36:51AM -0500, Dennis Dalessandro wrote: > On 1/15/23 6:46 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 12:21:50PM -0500, Dennis Dalessandro wrote: > >> On 1/10/23 4:03 PM, Dennis Dalessandro wrote: > >>> On 1/10/23 9:58 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > >>>> On Mon, Jan 09, 2023 at 02:03:58PM -0500, Dennis Dalessandro wrote: > >>>>> Dean fixes the FIXME that was left by Jason in the code to use the interval > >>>>> notifier. > >>>> > >>>> ? Which patch did that? > >>> > >>> My fault. The last patch in the previous series [1] was meant to go first here. > >>> I got off by 1 when I was splitting the patches out for submit. > >>> > >>> [1] > >>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-rdma/167328549178.1472310.9867497376936699488.stgit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#u > >> > >> As a side effect of this, can we pull patch 2/7 from this series into the RC? > > > > No, everything is in for-rc/for-next now. > > Without that patch there will be a regression in 6.2. I'm lost here. You are saying above that you wanted patch from -rc to be in -next series. However, you wrote about regression in 6.2, which is -rc. > Is there a reason it can't merge into -rc? Here you are asking to bring -next patches to -rc. So please help me, what do you want to do with these branches? 1. -rc 2. -next Options are: 1. keep as is 2. revert 3. anything else? What we won't do: 1. backmerge -next to -rc 2. merge -rc into -next without strong justification, as it is not needed in general because such merge happens during merge window. Thanks
