On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 10:21:38AM +0800, Ye Weihua wrote:
>
> On 2022/9/10 14:34, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 11:40:07AM +0800, Ye Weihua wrote:
> > > The following patch is required to be patched in linux-5.10.y:
> > >
> > >
> > > 3f913fc5f974 mm: fix missing handler for __GFP_NOWARN
> > >
> > >
> > > Commit 6b9dbedbe349 ("tty: fix deadlock caused by calling printk() under
> > > tty_port->lock")
> > >
> > > was backported to linux-5.10.y. But __GFP_NOWARN flag is still not check in
> > > fail_dump(), and
> > >
> > > deadlock issues still occur.
> > >
> > What about all of the other stable kernel trees that the tty patch was
> > backported to? Do they also need the mm change as well? That would
> > include 4.9.y, 4.14.y, 4.19.y, 5.4.y, 5.10.y, and 5.15.y.
>
> I checked the branches and found that the status of each branch was the
> same. That is, the commit 6b9dbedbe349 ("tty: fix deadlock caused by calling
> printk() under tty_port->lock") was backported but the commit 3f913fc5f974
> ("mm: fix missing handler for __GFP_NOWARN") was not. Therefore, the problem
> occurred in all branches. The commit "mm: fix missing handler for
> __GFP_NOWARN" should be backported to 4.9.y, 4.14.y, 4.19.y, 5.4.y, 5.10.y,
> and 5.15.y.
Ok, can you provide a proper backport that has been tested for all of
these branches as it does not apply cleanly as-is.
Or we can revert the tty patch, which do you think is better?
thanks,
greg k-h
