Le 16/09/2020 à 09:52, David Hildenbrand a écrit :
On 16.09.20 09:47, Laurent Dufour wrote:
Le 16/09/2020 à 09:40, Greg Kroah-Hartman a écrit :
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 09:29:22AM +0200, Laurent Dufour wrote:
Le 16/09/2020 à 08:33, Greg Kroah-Hartman a écrit :
On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 03:26:24PM +0200, Laurent Dufour wrote:
The memmap_context enum is used to detect whether a memory operation is due
to a hot-add operation or happening at boot time.
Make it general to the hotplug operation and rename it as meminit_context.
There is no functional change introduced by this patch
Suggested-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/ia64/mm/init.c | 6 +++---
include/linux/mm.h | 2 +-
include/linux/mmzone.h | 11 ++++++++---
mm/memory_hotplug.c | 2 +-
mm/page_alloc.c | 10 +++++-----
5 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
<formletter>
This is not the correct way to submit patches for inclusion in the
stable kernel tree. Please read:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
for how to do this properly.
</formletter>
Hi Greg,
I'm sorry, I read that document few days ago before sending the series and
again this morning, but I can't figure out what I missed (following option
1).
Should the "Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" tag be on each patch of the series
even if the whole series has been sent to stable ?
That should be on any patch you expect to show up in a stable kernel
release.
Should the whole series sent again (v4) instead of sending a fix as a reply to ?
It's up to the maintainer what they want, but as it is, this patch is
not going to end up in stable kernel release (which it looks like is the
right thing to do...)
Thanks a lot Greg.
I'll send that single patch again with the Cc: stable tag.
I think Andrew can add that when sending upstream.
Andrew, can you do that?
While a single patch to fix + backport would be nicer, I don't see an
easy (!ugly) way to achieve the same without this cleanup.
1. We could rework patch #2 to pass a simple boolean flag, and a
follow-on patch to pass the context. Not sure if that's any better.
2. We could rework patch #2 to pass memmap_context first, and modify
patch #1 to also rename this instance.
Maybe 2. might be reasonable (not sure if worth the trouble). @Greg any
preference?
I don't think the patch 3 need to be backported, it doesn't fix any issue and
with the patch 1 and 2 applied, the BUG_ON should no more be triggered easily.
Agreed.
