[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID:
<SN6PR02MB4157B9D2128314E34E2F646DD4722@SN6PR02MB4157.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2024 23:34:46 +0000
From: Michael Kelley <mhklinux@...look.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, "patchwork-bot+netdevbpf@...nel.org"
<patchwork-bot+netdevbpf@...nel.org>
CC: Michael Kelley <mhkelley58@...il.com>, "kys@...rosoft.com"
<kys@...rosoft.com>, "haiyangz@...rosoft.com" <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
"wei.liu@...nel.org" <wei.liu@...nel.org>, "decui@...rosoft.com"
<decui@...rosoft.com>, "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>, "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, "x86@...nel.org"
<x86@...nel.org>, "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>, "joro@...tes.org"
<joro@...tes.org>, "will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
"robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>, "davem@...emloft.net"
<davem@...emloft.net>, "edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com"
<James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>, "martin.petersen@...cle.com"
<martin.petersen@...cle.com>, "iommu@...ts.linux.dev"
<iommu@...ts.linux.dev>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/5] hyper-v: Don't assume cpu_possible_mask is dense
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> Sent: Friday, October 4, 2024 4:26 PM
>
> On Fri, 04 Oct 2024 23:20:40 +0000 patchwork-bot+netdevbpf@...nel.org
> wrote:
> > - [net-next,5/5] hv_netvsc: Don't assume cpu_possible_mask is dense
> >
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net-next.git/commit/?id=c86ab60b92d1
>
> On reflection I probably should have asked you for a fixes tag and
> applied it to net :S Oh well.
I thought about including a Fixes: tag, but decided that since current and
past builds don't exhibit a failure due to this issue, it's not necessary to
backport. The patches are more for robustness against future changes.
I've heard differing views on whether changes that aren't fixing an
actual failure should be backported ....
Also, patchwork bot email says that the *series* was applied to net-next.
But appears that's not the case. Only the network-related patch from the
series was applied. Still need the SCSI maintainer to pick up the SCSI patch,
and the Hyper-V maintainer to pick up the others.
Thanks,
Michael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists