On 11/21/19 9:38 PM, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 05:00:29AM +0000, Ajay Kaher wrote: >> >> On 06/11/19, 2:25 PM, "Vlastimil Babka" <vbabka@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> On 10/25/19 8:18 AM, Ajay Kaher wrote: >>>> On 17/10/19, 9:58 PM, "Ajay Kaher" <akaher@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Could we handle arch-specific gup.c in different patch sets and >>>>> let these patches to merge to 4.4.y? >>>> >>>> Vlastimil, please suggest if it's fine to merge these patches to 4.4.y >>> >>> I'm not sure if it makes much sense to merge them without the arch-specific gup >>> support, when we're aware that it's missing. >>> >>>> and handle arch-specific gup.c in different patch sets starts from 4.19.y, >>> >>> Actually arch-specific gup.c were removed in 4.13, so it's enough to start from >>> 4.9.y, which I'm going to finally look into. >> >> Yes x86 gup.c is removed. s390 gup.c is present till 4.19, >> so if you are making changes in this file for 4.4.y and 4.9.y, >> then same should be done for 4.14.y and v4.19.y. > > Ok, I have no idea what to do here. I have two different series from > both of you, yet they are different. > > Can you both come up with a series you agree on, and send it to me, with > both of your acks so that I know this is what should be applied? I've > deleted both of your current series from my todo mbox. I started by fixing up [1] 4.9, 4.14 and 4.19 which already got the backport, but without arch-specific gup.c variants. I'll wait for Ajay's feedback for the 4.4 series. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20191129090351.3507-1-vbabka@xxxxxxx/ > thanks, > > greg k-h >
