On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 08:50:20AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 1/16/23 8:44 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: > > On 1/16/23 7:49 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 07:13:40AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > >>> On 1/16/23 6:42 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: > >>>> On 1/16/23 6:17?AM, Linux kernel regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote: > >>>>> Hi, this is your Linux kernel regression tracker. > >>>>> > >>>>> I noticed a regression report in bugzilla.kernel.org. As many (most?) > >>>>> kernel developer don't keep an eye on it, I decided to forward it by > >>>>> mail. Quoting from https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216932 : > >>>> > >>>> Looks like: > >>>> > >>>> commit 6d47e0f6a535701134d950db65eb8fe1edf0b575 > >>>> Author: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> > >>>> Date: Wed Jan 4 08:52:06 2023 -0700 > >>>> > >>>> block: don't allow splitting of a REQ_NOWAIT bio > >>>> > >>>> got picked up by stable, but not the required prep patch: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> commit 613b14884b8595e20b9fac4126bf627313827fbe > >>>> Author: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> > >>>> Date: Wed Jan 4 08:51:19 2023 -0700 > >>>> > >>>> block: handle bio_split_to_limits() NULL return > >>>> > >>>> Greg/team, can you pick the latter too? It'll pick cleanly for > >>>> 6.1-stable, not sure how far back the other patch has gone yet. > >>> > >>> Looked back, and 5.15 has it too, but the cherry-pick won't work > >>> on that kernel. > >>> > >>> Here's one for 5.15-stable that I verified crashes before this one, > >>> and works with it. Haven't done an allmodconfig yet... > >> > >> All now queued up, thanks! > > > > Thanks Greg! This one was my fault, as it was a set of 2 patches and > > I only marked 2/2 for stable. But how is that best handled? 1/2 could've > > been marked stable as well, but I don't think that would have prevented > > 2/2 applying fine and 1/2 failing and hence not getting queued up until > > I would've done a backport. > > > > What's the recommended way to describe the dependency that you only > > want 2/2 applied when 1/2 is in as well? > > What I'm asking is if we have something like Depends-on or similar > that would explain this dependency. Then patch 2/2 could have: > > Depends-on: 613b14884b85 ("block: handle bio_split_to_limits() NULL return") > > and then it'd be clear that either both get added, or none of them. As per the documentation, you can put this on the cc: stable line in the changelog text like: cc: stable <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 613b14884b85 thanks, greg k-h
