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 Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 281F0C2BA15 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2024 14:32:52 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20201202 header.b=BFrTmS1n; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4W45gj5hG8z3cmk for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2024 00:32:49 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20201202 header.b=BFrTmS1n; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=kernel.org (client-ip=2604:1380:40e1:4800::1; helo=sin.source.kernel.org; envelope-from=sashal@kernel.org; receiver=lists.ozlabs.org) Received: from sin.source.kernel.org (sin.source.kernel.org [IPv6:2604:1380:40e1:4800::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4W45fw278Hz3cXH for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2024 00:32:08 +1000 (AEST) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (transwarp.subspace.kernel.org [100.75.92.58]) by sin.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01B50CE1EFE; Wed, 19 Jun 2024 14:32:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EBE1BC2BBFC; Wed, 19 Jun 2024 14:32:04 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1718807525; bh=5P4+U94Sj+hrx7FTYMGgX4hD00hQheT4KmraZdUEYZw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=BFrTmS1nAs54AIbQRFZWX6lLQQAx8iDngpm6hPCbqM/x2FF0WG8GEifv6OBwWMy63 QLX8gIuxc4F8/AU2zqq+8lzI+csN2fj+rExfrSaQHK0Thz7r2G9rP5EhglR4a4LIgN GICcPGSZlt6gXYBe5uUZSaY0XCDFRbE581EkN8dytKB4p8c106gwdijV3OrZq3vFHD bLfpJyZHsZN8XqgAFkZpyBmQV0TCNPbTTRPCKjXP0J2lgso5AF/PVbWVPfVVKItnnx WXCH97MarRhZvHnHtNODnhxQBFoYbPN4RqrARkKyvsVdn84Z6qNBPl58dO2gLlSMqC 2vynCwPOKRd1A== Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 10:32:03 -0400 From: Sasha Levin To: Michael Ellerman Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 6.9 18/23] powerpc: make fadump resilient with memory add/remove events Message-ID: References: <20240527155123.3863983-1-sashal@kernel.org> <20240527155123.3863983-18-sashal@kernel.org> <944f47df-96f0-40e8-a8e2-750fb9fa358e@linux.ibm.com> <87a5jhe94t.fsf@mail.lhotse> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87a5jhe94t.fsf@mail.lhotse> 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: bhe@redhat.com, Pavel Machek , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, Mahesh J Salgaonkar , aneesh.kumar@kernel.org, Sourabh Jain , Naveen N Rao , bhelgaas@google.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, hbathini@linux.ibm.com Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 04:31:30PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: >Pavel Machek writes: >>> Hello Sasha, >>> >>> Thank you for considering this patch for the stable tree 6.9, 6.8, 6.6, and >>> 6.1. >>> >>> This patch does two things: >>> 1. Fixes a potential memory corruption issue mentioned as the third point in >>> the commit message >>> 2. Enables the kernel to avoid unnecessary fadump re-registration on memory >>> add/remove events >> >> Actually, I'd suggest dropping this one, as it fixes two things and is >> over 200 lines long, as per stable kernel rules. > >Yeah I agree, best to drop this one. It's a bit big and involved, and >has other dependencies. I'll drop it, thanks! -- Thanks, Sasha