On Wed, 29 Nov 2023, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 07:16:52PM +0100, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> >
> >
> >On Wed, 29 Nov 2023, Sasha Levin wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 06:28:16PM +0100, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >On Wed, 29 Nov 2023, Christian Loehle wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Hi Mikulas,
> >> >> Agreed and thanks for fixing.
> >> >> Has this been selected for stable because of:
> >> >> 6fc45b6ed921 ("dm-delay: fix a race between delay_presuspend and
> >> >> delay_bio")
> >> >> If so, I would volunteer do the backports for that for you at least.
> >> >
> >> >I wouldn't backport this patch - it is an enhancement, not a bugfix, so it
> >> >doesn't qualify for the stable kernel backports.
> >>
> >> Right - this watch was selected as a dependency for 6fc45b6ed921
> >> ("dm-delay: fix a race between delay_presuspend and delay_bio").
> >>
> >> In general, unless it's impractical, we'd rather take a dependency chain
> >> rather than deal with a non-trivial backport as those tend to have
> >> issues longer term.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Thanks,
> >> Sasha
> >
> >The patch 70bbeb29fab0 ("dm delay: for short delays, use kthread instead
> >of timers and wq") changes behavior of dm-delay from using timers to
> >polling, so it may cause problems to people running legacy kernels - the
> >polling consumes more CPU time than the timers - so I think it shouldn't
> >go to the stable kernels where users expect that there will be no
> >functional change.
> >
> >Here I'm submitting the patch 6fc45b6ed921 backported for 6.6.3.
>
> Is this okay for 6.1 too?
Yes, it is. It applies to kernels as old as 4.19.
Mikulas
