[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <dd620210-af02-189c-f972-e31bd21008b4@roeck-us.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2021 07:45:22 -0800
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
shuah@...nel.org, patches@...nelci.org,
lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org, pavel@...x.de, jonathanh@...dia.com,
f.fainelli@...il.com, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.9 000/206] 4.9.291-rc2 review
On 11/25/21 4:57 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.9.291 release.
> There are 206 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.
>
> Responses should be made by Sat, 27 Nov 2021 12:56:08 +0000.
> Anything received after that time might be too late.
>
In file included from arch/sh/mm/init.c:25:
arch/sh/include/asm/tlb.h:118:15: error: return type defaults to 'int' [-Werror=return-type]
118 | static inline tlb_flush_pmd_range(struct mmu_gather *tlb, unsigned long address,
The problem affects v4.9.y, v4.14.y, and v4.19.y.
Commit aca917cb287ba99c5 ("hugetlbfs: flush TLBs correctly after huge_pmd_unshare")
doesn't really match the upstream commit and obviously was not even build tested
on sh (and I would suspect it was not tested on other architectures either).
It seems to me that it may do more harm than good.
Guenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists