lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 18:09:55 +0200 From: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.ibm.com> To: akpm@...ux-foundation.org Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>, mhocko@...e.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, nathanl@...ux.ibm.com, cheloha@...ux.ibm.com, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] mm: replace memmap_context by meminit_context Le 16/09/2020 à 09:52, David Hildenbrand a écrit : > On 16.09.20 09:47, Laurent Dufour wrote: >> Le 16/09/2020 à 09:40, Greg Kroah-Hartman a écrit : >>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 09:29:22AM +0200, Laurent Dufour wrote: >>>> Le 16/09/2020 à 08:33, Greg Kroah-Hartman a écrit : >>>>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 03:26:24PM +0200, Laurent Dufour wrote: >>>>>> The memmap_context enum is used to detect whether a memory operation is due >>>>>> to a hot-add operation or happening at boot time. >>>>>> >>>>>> Make it general to the hotplug operation and rename it as meminit_context. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is no functional change introduced by this patch >>>>>> >>>>>> Suggested-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.ibm.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> arch/ia64/mm/init.c | 6 +++--- >>>>>> include/linux/mm.h | 2 +- >>>>>> include/linux/mmzone.h | 11 ++++++++--- >>>>>> mm/memory_hotplug.c | 2 +- >>>>>> mm/page_alloc.c | 10 +++++----- >>>>>> 5 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> <formletter> >>>>> >>>>> This is not the correct way to submit patches for inclusion in the >>>>> stable kernel tree. Please read: >>>>> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html >>>>> for how to do this properly. >>>>> >>>>> </formletter> >>>> >>>> Hi Greg, >>>> >>>> I'm sorry, I read that document few days ago before sending the series and >>>> again this morning, but I can't figure out what I missed (following option >>>> 1). >>>> >>>> Should the "Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org" tag be on each patch of the series >>>> even if the whole series has been sent to stable ? >>> >>> That should be on any patch you expect to show up in a stable kernel >>> release. >>> >>>> Should the whole series sent again (v4) instead of sending a fix as a reply to ? >>> >>> It's up to the maintainer what they want, but as it is, this patch is >>> not going to end up in stable kernel release (which it looks like is the >>> right thing to do...) >> >> Thanks a lot Greg. >> >> I'll send that single patch again with the Cc: stable tag. > > I think Andrew can add that when sending upstream. Andrew, can you do that? > While a single patch to fix + backport would be nicer, I don't see an > easy (!ugly) way to achieve the same without this cleanup. > > 1. We could rework patch #2 to pass a simple boolean flag, and a > follow-on patch to pass the context. Not sure if that's any better. > > 2. We could rework patch #2 to pass memmap_context first, and modify > patch #1 to also rename this instance. > > Maybe 2. might be reasonable (not sure if worth the trouble). @Greg any > preference? > >> >> I don't think the patch 3 need to be backported, it doesn't fix any issue and >> with the patch 1 and 2 applied, the BUG_ON should no more be triggered easily. > > Agreed. > >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists