On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 09:56:22AM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 04:59:39PM -0800, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > > Per discussion [1], can we merge these patches in 5.10 first? > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-f2fs-devel/CAEe=Sx=6FCvrp_6x2Bqp3YTzep2s=aWdCmP29g7+sGCWkpNvkg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#t > > I do not understand, what "discussion" exactly is there that requires > these changes for older kernels? > > What bug is this fixing? > > > Peter Zijlstra (3): > > locking/rwsem: Better collate rwsem_read_trylock() > > locking/rwsem: Introduce rwsem_write_trylock() > > locking/rwsem: Fold __down_{read,write}*() > > > > Waiman Long (4): > > locking/rwsem: Pass the current atomic count to > > rwsem_down_read_slowpath() > > locking/rwsem: Prevent potential lock starvation > > locking/rwsem: Enable reader optimistic lock stealing > > locking/rwsem: Remove reader optimistic spinning > > > > kernel/locking/lock_events_list.h | 6 +- > > kernel/locking/rwsem.c | 359 +++++++++--------------------- > > 2 files changed, 106 insertions(+), 259 deletions(-) > > And you are positive that there are no follow-on patches needed for > these core changes? How were they tested? What now works that did not > work in 5.10? Why just 5.10? What about all older kernels? > > We need a lot more information here, sorry. Given a lack of response, I'm dropping this from my "to review" queue. If you want these added to a stable kernel, please resend with the requested information. thanks, greg k-h
