[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180320144531.GA3716@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 10:45:31 -0400
From: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@...dia.com>,
Evgeny Baskakov <ebaskakov@...dia.com>,
Mark Hairgrove <mhairgrove@...dia.com>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] mm/hmm: HMM should have a callback before MM is
destroyed
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 12:33:26PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 15-03-18 15:48:29, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 14:36:59 -0400 jglisse@...hat.com wrote:
> >
> > > From: Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@...dia.com>
> > >
> > > The hmm_mirror_register() function registers a callback for when
> > > the CPU pagetable is modified. Normally, the device driver will
> > > call hmm_mirror_unregister() when the process using the device is
> > > finished. However, if the process exits uncleanly, the struct_mm
> > > can be destroyed with no warning to the device driver.
> >
> > The changelog doesn't tell us what the runtime effects of the bug are.
> > This makes it hard for me to answer the "did Jerome consider doing
> > cc:stable" question.
>
> There is no upstream user of this code IIRC, so does it make sense to
> mark anything for stable trees?
I am fine with dropping stable, distribution that care about out of tree
drivers can easily backport themself. I am hoping to have the nouveau
part upstream in 4.18/4.19 ...
Cheers,
Jérôme
Powered by blists - more mailing lists