On Wed, 5 Jul 2023 17:32:09 -0700 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 5:30 PM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 5:24 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 5 Jul 2023 13:33:26 -0700 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > I was hoping we could re-enable VMA locks in 6.4 once we get more > > > > confirmations that the problem is gone. Is that not possible once the > > > > BROKEN dependency is merged? > > > > > > I think "no". By doing this we're effectively backporting a minor > > > performance optimization, which isn't a thing we'd normally do. > > > > In that case, maybe for 6.4 we send the fix and only disable it by > > default without marking BROKEN? That way we still have a way to enable > > it if desired? > > I'm preparing the next version with Liam's corrections. If the above > option I suggested is acceptable I can send a modified second patch > which would not have BROKEN dependency. I think just mark it broken and move on. At some later time we can consider backporting the fixes into 6.4.x and reenabling, but I don't think it's likely that we'll do this.
