[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z7zYRWTf87HZsAvN@surfacebook.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 22:36:21 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] x86/mm: Check if PTRS_PER_PMD is defined before
use
Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 10:37:50AM -0800, Dave Hansen kirjoitti:
> On 2/24/25 10:11, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >> From reading the "Closes:" link, it appears this is a new issue that
> >> originates from a new compile flag. So it doesn't seem like it's worth
> >> backporting.
> > FWIW, I haven't put any Fixes tag nor Cc: stable@ 🙂
> > Also note this looks like both compilers complain about the same.
>
> Yeah, I did note that.
>
> I see a lot of patches where folks simply forget about stable and Fixes.
> Unfortunately, I'm not super clairvoyant and when I see an ambiguous
> changelog without stable and Fixes, I can't tell if it was an oversight
> or intentional.
In this case it was intentional.
> It would be great if contributors could be less ambiguous and save us
> the trouble of having to ask!
Sure. For _this_ change as it's clear now, can we proceed for v6.15?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists