On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 07:25:48AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 04:04:49PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 05:18:48PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote: > > > commit 51232df5e4b268936beccde5248f312a316800be upstream. > > > Updates: > > > include/linux/xarray.h: > > > add xa_untag_pointer,xa_tag_pointer,xa_pointer_tag > > > from upstream 3159f943aafd in order to reduce > > > conflicts. > > > > No, sorry, I don't want to add xarray.h to 4.19.y, that's crazy. > > I gave this a quick look when it came past, and I don't particularly > object to this piece going into 4.19.y. A full-on backport of XArray > to 4.19 will be ... interesting, but essentially this is just some > boilerplate. > > > And even if we did, you do not slip it in as part of a different patch, > > it should come in as its own patch, with the same git commit id that it > > landed in 4.20 with. > > Putting in all of 3159f943aafdbacb2f94c38fdaadabf2bbde2a14 would be a > bad idea; it actually ended up breaking m68k in a rather unexpected way > which required 66ee620f06f99d72475db6eb638559ba608c7dee, which in turn > caused a memory consumption regression ... Where did the chain of regressions stop? that would be good to know as we will have to deal with this over time :) thanks, greg k-h
