Hi. On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 at 17:05, Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 04:35:03PM +0100, Giuliano Procida wrote: > > Hi. > > > > On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 at 15:59, Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 10:16:45AM +0100, Giuliano Procida wrote: > > > > Hi. > > > > > > > > On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 at 08:33, Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post > > > > > Q: Were do I find info about this thing called top-posting? > > > > > A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. > > > > > Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? > > > > > A: Top-posting. > > > > > Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? > > > > > > > > > > A: No. > > > > > Q: Should I include quotations after my reply? > > > > > > > > > > http://daringfireball.net/2007/07/on_top > > > > > > > > > > :) > > > > > > > > I'm well aware of the above. > > > > Alas, I haven't used mutt properly in about 15 years and I'm still > > > > doing everything with Gmail. > > > > > > gmail can handle proper quoting, if you are stuck with that :) > > > > > > > Given that I was referring to the entire email thread, I punted on > > > > finding a place to insert a comment. > > > > BTW, there's a typo in the Q&A above. s/Were/Where/ > > > > > > Ah, nice catch, first one to notice that in years! > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 08:27:55AM +0100, Giuliano Procida wrote: > > > > > > Hi Greg. > > > > > > > > > > > > Is this patch (and the similar one for 4.9) queued? > > > > > > > > > > f5bbbbe4d635 ("blk-mq: sync the update nr_hw_queues with > > > > > blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter") is in the following stable releases: > > > > > 4.4.224 4.9.219 4.14.176 4.19 > > > > > > > > > > Do you not see it there? > > > > > > > > We are referring to different "it"s. > > > > > > > > Yours: f5bbbbe4d635 is the upstream patch that went into v4.19-rc1 and > > > > which you back-ported to at least some of these kernels. This is > > > > clearly there. > > > > > > Great. > > > > > > > Mine: the commit sent earlier in this email thread - it's a > > > > re-back-port, as I think the original back-port for 4.14 (and > > > > similarly for 4.9) is incorrect. This has clearly not reached public > > > > git, hence my question about whether the change was queued. > > > > > > I don't know what the git commit id you are looking for here, sorry. I > > > don't have the whole thread anywhere. > > > > > > > These are the ids of messages containing my commits: > > > > > > > > 4.14: 20200608093950.86293-1-gprocida@xxxxxxxxxx > > > > 4.9: 20200608094030.87031-1-gprocida@xxxxxxxxxx > > > > > > Pointers to this on lore.kernel.org perhaps? > > > > > > > I wasn't aware stable was publicly archived. Here you go: > > > > 4.14: https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20200608093950.86293-1-gprocida@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > 4.9: https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20200608094030.87031-1-gprocida@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > As per the git commit id in those emails, you should be able to > determine the same thing that I can, namely that that patch is in the > following stable releases: > 4.4.224 4.9.219 4.14.176 4.19 Both those commits contain the text: "Backporting Notes This is a re-backport, landing synchronize_rcu in the right place." If there's a special procedure for fixing back-ports, let me know, 'cos I haven't found one! Cheers, Giuliano. > thanks, > > greg k-h
