On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 02:59:16PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.215 release. > > There are 294 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > > let me know. > > > Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx> > > vfio/pci: Create persistent INTx handler > > This introduces memory leak in vfio_intx_enable() -- name is not freed > in case vdev->ctx = kzalloc() fails, for example. So is the upstream commit wrong, or the backport wrong? > > Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> > > x86/cpufeatures: Add CPUID_LNX_5 to track recently added Linux-defined word > > AFAICT this is not needed in 5.10. Why not? > > Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> > > objtool: Add asm version of STACK_FRAME_NON_STANDARD > > Asm version of this macro is not used in 5.10. It fixed an issue. > > Michael Roth <michael.roth@xxxxxxx> > > x86/head/64: Re-enable stack protection > > This is preparation for preparation for SEV-SNP CPUID patches, I don't > believe we plan that for 6.1. This is 5.10, not 6.1. And are you sure that this is not needed? Remember the x86 speculation mess that is happening here. > > David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxxx> > > btrfs: handle chunk tree lookup error in btrfs_relocate_sys_chunks() > > (This applies to 4.19, too). mutex_unlock() is needed before "goto > error" here. So can you provide that fix please? > > Aric Cyr <aric.cyr@xxxxxxx> > > drm/amd/display: Fix nanosec stat overflow > > (This applies to 4.19, too). This is wrong. It updates prototypes but > not actual functions. So should it be dropped or added to 4.19? confused, greg k-h
