From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: paulmck@linux.ibm.com (Paul E. McKenney)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 10:22:29 -0800
Subject: v5.0-rc2 and NVMeOF
In-Reply-To: <1551284750.31902.196.camel@acm.org>
References: <1550103713.31902.57.camel@acm.org>
 <20190214010210.GM4240@linux.ibm.com>
 <20190226173520.GA21832@linux.ibm.com>
 <1551203224.31902.173.camel@acm.org>
 <20190226181211.GU4072@linux.ibm.com>
 <1551206403.31902.179.camel@acm.org>
 <20190226192043.GW4072@linux.ibm.com>
 <1551224887.31902.190.camel@acm.org>
 <20190227160411.GD4072@linux.ibm.com>
 <1551284750.31902.196.camel@acm.org>
Message-ID: <20190227182229.GH4072@linux.ibm.com>

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019@08:25:50AM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-02-27@08:04 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019@03:48:07PM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2019-02-26@11:20 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019@10:40:03AM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 2019-02-26@10:12 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > But if you want me to try to push this into v5.1, I need you to very
> > > > > > explicitly tell me that you want me to do this.  Sorry to be picky, but
> > > > > > my normal process cut off contributions to v5.0 more than a month ago,
> > > > > > and my usual position is that a backport to -stable covers almost all
> > > > > > use cases and reduces risk to those using mainline.  Yes, RCU patches
> > > > > > do start off under a considerable cloud of suspicion.  Which is one of
> > > > > > the reasons that RCU works at all.  ;-)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > So again, if you need me to try to push this into v5.1, I do need an
> > > > > > explicit request from you.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hi Paul,
> > > > > 
> > > > > If this patch will only be sent to Linus during the v5.2 merge window, will
> > > > > a "Cc: stable # v..." tag be added to this patch that causes this patch to
> > > > > be applied to kernel versions before v5.2 on which it is safe to apply this
> > > > > patch?
> > > > 
> > > > I would prefer that, especially if you let me know which versions that
> > > > are important to you.  ;-)
> > > 
> > > Hi Paul,
> > > 
> > > Is this the commit that introduced WQ_MEM_RECLAIM queues for SRCU?
> > > 
> > > ad7c946b35ad ("rcu: Create RCU-specific workqueues with rescuers") # v4.17
> > > 
> > > Since the commit earlier in this e-mail thread reverts changes introduced in
> > > kernel v4.18 I propose to request the stable tree maintainers to backport
> > > this patch to the v4.18 and later stable kernel trees.
> > 
> > That is the one!  Hmmm...  Looks like these have to be backported by hand.
> > Or am I just confused this morning?
> 
> Hi Paul,
> 
> In my e-mail I was referring to sending only commit c0bd8bc59c77 ("srcu: Remove
> cleanup_srcu_struct_quiesced()") to the stable kernel tree maintainers. Are you
> perhaps referring to another commit?

Hello, Bart,

I am not having much luck automatically applying either of those two
commits.  Perhaps pilot error.  Does it work for you?

Ah, I back-ported that patch for you, didn't I?  If so would you be willing
to take care of sending it to -stable once c0bd8bc59c77 ("srcu: Remove
cleanup_srcu_struct_quiesced()") hits mainline?

							Thanx, Paul