[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALW65jZQzTMv1HMB3R9cSACebVagtUsMM9iiL8zkTGmethfcPg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2025 15:32:06 +0800
From: Qingfang Deng <dqfext@...il.com>
To: Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...nel.org>
Cc: Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>, Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>, 
	Tom Talpey <tom@...pey.com>, Ronnie Sahlberg <lsahlber@...hat.com>, Hyunchul Lee <hyc.lee@...il.com>, 
	linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, 
	Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ksmbd: server: avoid busy polling in accept loop
Hi Namjae,
On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 4:11 PM Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...nel.org> wrote:
> > Fixes: 0626e6641f6b ("cifsd: add server handler for central processing and tranport layers")
> > Signed-off-by: Qingfang Deng <dqfext@...il.com>
> Applied it to #ksmbd-for-next-next.
> Thanks!
I just found that this depends on another commit which is not in
kernel versions earlier than v6.1:
a7c01fa93aeb ("signal: break out of wait loops on kthread_stop()")
With the current Fixes tag, this commit will be backported to v5.15
automatically. But without said commit, kthread_stop() cannot wake up
a blocking kernel_accept().
Should I change the Fixes tag, or inform linux-stable not to backport
this patch to v5.15?
+Cc: Jason, Sasha, and GregKH
Regards,
Qingfang
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
 
