From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: hmm_range_fault related fixes and legacy API removal v2 Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 18:32:44 +0200 Message-ID: <20190723163244.GE1655@lst.de> References: <20190722094426.18563-1-hch@lst.de> <20190723152737.GO15331@mellanox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190723152737.GO15331@mellanox.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jason Gunthorpe Cc: Christoph Hellwig , =?iso-8859-1?B?Suly9G1l?= Glisse , Ben Skeggs , Ralph Campbell , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org" , "dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 03:27:41PM +0000, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > Ignoring the STAGING issue I've tried to use the same guideline as for > -stable for -rc .. > > So this is a real problem, we definitely hit the locking bugs if we > retry/etc under stress, so I would be OK to send it to Linus for > early-rc. > > However, it doesn't look like the 1st patch is fixing a current bug > though, the only callers uses blocking = true, so just the middle > three are -rc? nonblocking isn't used anywher, but it is a major, major API bug. Your call, but if it was my tree I'd probably send it to Linus.