On 1/16/23 2:16 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > 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. Originally I did not mean to send: [PATCH for-rc 6/6] IB/hfi1: Remove user expected buffer invalidate race for -rc. I didn't realize, it has a functional dependency on: [PATCH for-next 2/7] IB/hfi1: Assign npages earlier Ideally either they both go to -rc or they both go to -next. >> Is there a reason it can't merge into -rc? > > Here you are asking to bring -next patches to -rc. One patch. > 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 Let me do some build testing. If we revert the -rc patch and then reapply to -next we may encounter conflicts and/or build issues and just make things worse. > 3. anything else?Will get back to you if I come up with something else. > What we won't do: > 1. backmerge -next to -rc So why is this not an option? Well ok so I don't mean we should merge. I guess I'm more looking to cherry-pick. > 2. merge -rc into -next without strong justification, as it is not > needed in general because such merge happens during merge window. Agree, not needed. -Denny
