[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8e13926d-b685-4802-a207-ade2001cb657@suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 11:13:27 +0200
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Liam R . Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>, Mike Rapoport
<rppt@...nel.org>, Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Pedro Falcato <pfalcato@...e.de>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: remove WARN_ON_ONCE() in file_has_valid_mmap_hooks()
On 5/14/25 10:56, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
>> Fixes: c84bf6dd2b83 ("mm: introduce new .mmap_prepare() file callback")
Ah yeah I missed there wasn't one.
> Is it worth having a fixes tag for something not upstream? This is why I
> excluded that. I feel like it's maybe more misleading when the commit hashes are
> ephemeral in a certain branch?
Yeah it can be useful, in case the fixed commit gets backported somewhere,
tools can warn that there's a follow up fix. As mm-stable hashes should not
be ephemeral, then this should remain valid (and if there's a rebase for
some reason then the fix could be squashed).
>>
>> Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
>
> Thanks!
>
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> David / dhildenb
>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists