On 25/11/2019 02:16, Eric Sandeen wrote: > Hm that doesn't make sense; f8f9ee479439 introduces kmem_alloc_io > with 3 arguments. 2 arguments to kmem_alloc_io, missing the alignment > mask, would be a problem. > >> return kmem_alloc_io(BBTOB(nbblks), align_mask, KM_MAYFAIL | KM_ZERO); >> return kmem_alloc_io(BBTOB(nbblks), KM_MAYFAIL | KM_ZERO); >> >> Do you think it's safe to keep these 4 patches on top of the 5.3.12 >> tree? So far it all looks fine, filesystems mount and work fine. > > Yes, but ... they should probably be applied correctly. A quick test here > seems to show the three I suggested apply to 5.3.12 cleanly. > > -Eric > You're right, my bad, I applied them in order and now they work fine. I guess there's no point in fixing this in stable since 5.3 is not a long term kernel and the fix is already in 5.4? Regards, Pedro
