From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Laurent Dufour Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 16:09:55 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] mm: replace memmap_context by meminit_context Message-Id: List-Id: References: <20200915121541.GD4649@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200915132624.9723-1-ldufour@linux.ibm.com> <20200916063325.GK142621@kroah.com> <0b3f2eb1-0efa-a491-c509-d16a7e18d8e8@linux.ibm.com> <20200916074047.GA189144@kroah.com> <9e8d38b9-3875-0fd8-5f28-3502f33c2c34@linux.ibm.com> <95005625-b159-0d49-8334-3c6cdbb7f27a@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <95005625-b159-0d49-8334-3c6cdbb7f27a@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: akpm@linux-foundation.org Cc: David Hildenbrand , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Oscar Salvador , mhocko@suse.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, "Rafael J . Wysocki" , nathanl@linux.ibm.com, cheloha@linux.ibm.com, Tony Luck , Fenghua Yu , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org Le 16/09/2020 à 09:52, David Hildenbrand a écrit : > On 16.09.20 09:47, Laurent Dufour wrote: >> Le 16/09/2020 à 09:40, Greg Kroah-Hartman a écrit : >>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 09:29:22AM +0200, Laurent Dufour wrote: >>>> Le 16/09/2020 à 08:33, Greg Kroah-Hartman a écrit : >>>>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 03:26:24PM +0200, Laurent Dufour wrote: >>>>>> The memmap_context enum is used to detect whether a memory operation is due >>>>>> to a hot-add operation or happening at boot time. >>>>>> >>>>>> Make it general to the hotplug operation and rename it as meminit_context. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is no functional change introduced by this patch >>>>>> >>>>>> Suggested-by: David Hildenbrand >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Laurent Dufour >>>>>> --- >>>>>> arch/ia64/mm/init.c | 6 +++--- >>>>>> include/linux/mm.h | 2 +- >>>>>> include/linux/mmzone.h | 11 ++++++++--- >>>>>> mm/memory_hotplug.c | 2 +- >>>>>> mm/page_alloc.c | 10 +++++----- >>>>>> 5 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This is not the correct way to submit patches for inclusion in the >>>>> stable kernel tree. Please read: >>>>> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html >>>>> for how to do this properly. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Greg, >>>> >>>> I'm sorry, I read that document few days ago before sending the series and >>>> again this morning, but I can't figure out what I missed (following option >>>> 1). >>>> >>>> Should the "Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org" tag be on each patch of the series >>>> even if the whole series has been sent to stable ? >>> >>> That should be on any patch you expect to show up in a stable kernel >>> release. >>> >>>> Should the whole series sent again (v4) instead of sending a fix as a reply to ? >>> >>> It's up to the maintainer what they want, but as it is, this patch is >>> not going to end up in stable kernel release (which it looks like is the >>> right thing to do...) >> >> Thanks a lot Greg. >> >> I'll send that single patch again with the Cc: stable tag. > > I think Andrew can add that when sending upstream. Andrew, can you do that? > While a single patch to fix + backport would be nicer, I don't see an > easy (!ugly) way to achieve the same without this cleanup. > > 1. We could rework patch #2 to pass a simple boolean flag, and a > follow-on patch to pass the context. Not sure if that's any better. > > 2. We could rework patch #2 to pass memmap_context first, and modify > patch #1 to also rename this instance. > > Maybe 2. might be reasonable (not sure if worth the trouble). @Greg any > preference? > >> >> I don't think the patch 3 need to be backported, it doesn't fix any issue and >> with the patch 1 and 2 applied, the BUG_ON should no more be triggered easily. > > Agreed. > >