[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190112085318.GA119110@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 09:53:18 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-efi <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] EFI fix
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 6:22 AM Ard Biesheuvel
> <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org> wrote:
> >
> > I was hoping we could merge this patch (so we can backport it), but
> > resolve the conflict by dropping the kmemleak_ignore() again [..]
>
> Well, we'd drop the new #include line also, since it would be
> pointless without the kmemleak_ignore().
>
> End result: there would be nothing left. Better not to merge it at all.
Indeed!
> It's easy enough to backport, and just say "done differently upstream
> in commit 80424b02d42b ("efi: Reduce the amount of memblock
> reservations for persistent allocations").
>
> The stable tree doesn't require that the *same* commits be upstream,
> it only requires that the fixes be upstream and Greg&al want a pointer
> to the upstream fix just so that they know they're not fixing
> something that might still be broken upstream.
>
> See for example (just random googling)
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?id=37435f7e80ef9adc32a69013c18f135e3f434244
>
> which shows that "fixed differently upstream" case and points to why.
Thanks - I'm dropping the commit from efi/urgent.
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists