On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 08:04:52AM -0500, Dennis Dalessandro wrote: > 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. Backmerge will cause to the situation where features are brought to -rc. The cherry-pick will be: 1. Revert [PATCH for-next 2/7] IB/hfi1: Assign npages earlier] from -next 2. Apply [PATCH for-next 2/7] IB/hfi1: Assign npages earlier] to -rc Thanks
