[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <78883f84-dceb-9b24-b1f3-321d84091a85@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2023 16:23:19 +0800
From: Ruan Jinjie <ruanjinjie@...wei.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC: <catalin.marinas@....com>, <will@...nel.org>,
<haibinzhang@...cent.com>, <hewenliang4@...wei.com>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5.10] arm64: fix a concurrency issue in
emulation_proc_handler()
On 2023/1/31 15:27, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 02:52:11PM +0800, ruanjinjie wrote:
>> This patch is addressing an issue in stable linux-5.10 only.
>>
>> In linux-6.1, the related code is refactored in 124c49b1b("arm64:
>> armv8_deprecated: rework deprected instruction handling") and
>> this issue was incidentally fixed. However, the patch changes a lot and
>> is not specific to this issue.
>
> Then what about 5.15.y? You can not upgrade to that kernel and have a
> regression, right?
This patch has a pre-dependency af483947d ("arm64: fix oops in
concurrently setting insn_emulation sysctls"), which has not merged into
branches except 5.10.y, so the other branches don't apply.
>
> And nit, you need a ' ' before the '(' character.
>
> But why can we just not take the original commit that fixed this issue?
> That way almost always is the best (prevents regressions, makes
> backports easier, is actually tested, etc.) ?
Thank you! It is ok to take the original commit to fix this issue.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists