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=-5.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no 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 9E034C4361A for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 08:15:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7876D225A9 for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 08:15:14 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 7876D225A9 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CnQVl6sFCzDrPr for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 19:15:11 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.158.5; helo=mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=ldufour@linux.ibm.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=TYSRebq6; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CnQS74gbhzDr6L for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 19:12:55 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0127361.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 0B482uvd189493; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 03:12:46 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=subject : to : cc : references : from : message-id : date : mime-version : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=ihxf7PJh5l3HHItoamPpTYGJI1jYXP30TqwIpz+HddI=; b=TYSRebq62M6AXo8D2v54bUslXHUqXnA5gP9UepZ5rvnQyGbTejZOJojdL4wgxyhju6tu WhO0GC5mokvq1G/PYqvYryEZHIUw76EcScnWPlogPdlgjXtdusb9gzkeF/8Jg5xPXOGp AiAdp4aQFjWpRz56924WESQSnTV9zzXeIdO6BpgXYEpTqTDXpY8ImA1GMTnzxW+ZWG/j d5LEauvPD1GLQ/BeDGuq9XDgWQ3o8wAhEWYPR3M1j1iw5KhiL/RZxNdhP5knsTjnU72S yS/3DIaRuESdxCtb9CTNNjpLi27GbvsaX5gS3tWffzp8HjdhAaTuZBbFg0UNCIkJYVgZ Tg== Received: from ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com (66.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.102]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 357742xc2w-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 04 Dec 2020 03:12:46 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 0B48CC0p025047; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 08:12:42 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay13.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.198]) by ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 354fpdcta0-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 04 Dec 2020 08:12:42 +0000 Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.58]) by b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 0B48Cdba6029836 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 4 Dec 2020 08:12:39 GMT Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 489AD4C046; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 08:12:39 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 021BE4C040; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 08:12:39 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pomme.local (unknown [9.145.0.41]) by d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 08:12:38 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/hotplug: assign hot added LMB to the right node To: Greg KH References: <20201203101514.33591-1-ldufour@linux.ibm.com> From: Laurent Dufour Message-ID: <0fbf1f3c-908e-34ee-637c-b29f15e9dea8@linux.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2020 09:12:38 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.312, 18.0.737 definitions=2020-12-04_02:2020-12-04, 2020-12-04 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 mlxlogscore=999 spamscore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 suspectscore=0 impostorscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 clxscore=1011 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2012040043 X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Nathan Lynch , Scott Cheloha , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" Le 03/12/2020 à 19:25, Greg KH a écrit : > On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 11:15:14AM +0100, Laurent Dufour wrote: >> This patch applies to 5.9 and earlier kernels only. >> >> Since 5.10, this has been fortunately fixed by the commit >> e5e179aa3a39 ("pseries/drmem: don't cache node id in drmem_lmb struct"). > > Why can't we just backport that patch instead? It's almost always > better to do that than to have a one-off patch, as almost always those > have bugs in them. That's a good option too. I was thinking that this 5.10 patch was not matching the stable release's guidelines since it was targeting performance issue, but since it is also fixing this issue, I'm certainly wrong. So, forget that patch. Thanks, Laurent.