From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02AC3C432C0 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 18:41:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEC8B20836 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 18:41:15 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1574707275; bh=ao7yUUFS4L3B1AFCGdlva7cNzx6j5ghH6aHUFbb5xz0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=w7lWMWM7HoEN0nOiWGZ1cZ6dzYMALLLaDOxYPNStUxWZWXr4Hh+HOp/q91ToopRpH l6C6GVZnrBAHXBghmZy4FipGX4XOdE+KT05f0SBty2tazOLSagWL/G6cnpP8RRiNBD kRw8iz5ewxavXhLyC456g+y8sS2rLq/bQvNMqoWM= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727112AbfKYSlP (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Nov 2019 13:41:15 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:35086 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727090AbfKYSlP (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Nov 2019 13:41:15 -0500 Received: from localhost (83-86-89-107.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl [83.86.89.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 466672082F; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 18:41:14 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1574707274; bh=ao7yUUFS4L3B1AFCGdlva7cNzx6j5ghH6aHUFbb5xz0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Et46g5fCJajUxfEMmEmKtCblNoVIX87XC545jvu9h/epJUWsmu9hTTIxJSecih6Av K6s8sDSiKF2fbkYmjx06sJLaiUkB5x7JeEHvYuZJDhTnGOQPrUJURyi3zksqE466CD OAfAHA6TR8Irf2+Povy1a7w4MvTokCVW93mlhSwY= Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 19:41:12 +0100 From: Greg KH To: Sean Christopherson Cc: Sasha Levin , dan.j.williams@intel.com, david@redhat.com, kilobyte@angband.pl, pbonzini@redhat.com, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] KVM: MMU: Do not treat ZONE_DEVICE pages as being reserved" failed to apply to 4.19-stable tree Message-ID: <20191125184112.GA2961575@kroah.com> References: <1574090560219@kroah.com> <20191125174359.GI5861@sasha-vm> <20191125180136.GE12178@linux.intel.com> <20191125183434.GG12178@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191125183434.GG12178@linux.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.2 (2019-09-21) Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 10:34:34AM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 10:01:36AM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 12:43:59PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 04:22:40PM +0100, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote: > > > > > > > >The patch below does not apply to the 4.19-stable tree. > > ... > > > > >Reported-by: Adam Borowski > > > >Analyzed-by: David Hildenbrand > > > >Acked-by: Dan Williams > > > >Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > > > >Fixes: 3565fce3a659 ("mm, x86: get_user_pages() for dax mappings") > > > >Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson > > > >Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini > > > > > > I also took e7912386ede8 ("KVM: x86: reintroduce pte_list_remove, but > > > including mmu_spte_clear_track_bits") and queued both for 4.19-4.9. > > > > I don't think that will work, you'd also have to pull in commit 8daf346226b2 > > ("KVM: x86: rename pte_list_remove to __pte_list_remove"). And e7912386ede8 > > in particular isn't stable material. > > > > I'll send a proper backport for 4.19 and earlier, the conflicts should be > > easy to resolve. > > I have a silly backporting question regarding SOBs. Should I add a second > SOB for myself, reorder the SOBs, or leave it as is? E.g. (A) is the most > correct from a chronological handling perspective, but having two SOBs > feels weird. > > Option A: > Fixes: 3565fce3a659 ("mm, x86: get_user_pages() for dax mappings") > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini > [sean: backport to 4.x; resolve conflict in mmu.c] > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson > > Option B: > Fixes: 3565fce3a659 ("mm, x86: get_user_pages() for dax mappings") > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini > [sean: backport to 4.x; resolve conflict in mmu.c] > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson > > Option C: > Fixes: 3565fce3a659 ("mm, x86: get_user_pages() for dax mappings") > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini I really do not care, what ever one you want to do :) Sometimes A or B is usually a bit nicer to give some context as to what you did. thanks, greg k-h