On 16.01.20 10:26, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 09:59:44AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> On 16.01.20 09:54, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 09:42:51AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>> On 16.01.20 09:34, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 04:54:59PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And why would 4.9 and 4.4 care about them? >>>>>> >>>>>> The crashes can be trigger under 4.9 and 4.4. If we decide that we do >>>>>> not care, then this series can be dropped. >>>>> >>>>> Do we have users of memory hotplug that are somehow stuck at those old >>>>> versions that can not upgrade? Obviously this didn't work previously >>>>> for them, so moving to a modern kernel might be a good reason to get >>>>> this new feature :) >>>> >>>> That's a good point - but usually when you experience a crash it's too >>>> late for you to realize that you have to move to a newer release :) It >>>> used to work before 4.4 IIRC. >>>> >>>> (one case I am concerned with is when memory onlining after memory >>>> hotplug failed (e.g., because the was an OOM event happening >>>> concurrently) - then memory hotunplug will crash your system.) >>>> >>>> But yeah, I am not aware of a report where somebody actually hit any of >>>> these issues on a stable kernel. >> >> Just to clarify: I can reproduce them of course :) >> >>> >>> Ok, let's start with 4.19 and 4.14 for these for now. Should make >>> things easier, right? >> >> What do you mean with "start with"? Drop this series and not do the >> backport, meaning people should switch to a stable kernel > 4.19 if they >> don't want surprises on memory unplug? > > No, I'm saying I want to take this for 4.19, and 4.14 if you have it. > > But your original series you sent needs to be fixed up, I can't take it > as-is for the authorship reasons. Got it, will fix that up and resend! Cheers! -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
