Re: [PATCH 1/6] Drivers: hv: vmbus: Perform device register in the per-channel work element

Greg KH
2015-03-12T13:28:43Z

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 01:12:29PM +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Greg KH [mailto:gregkh@linuxfoundation.org]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 2:03 AM
> > To: KY Srinivasan
> > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; devel@linuxdriverproject.org;
> > olaf@aepfle.de; apw@canonical.com; vkuznets@redhat.com
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] Drivers: hv: vmbus: Perform device register in the
> > per-channel work element
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 10:02:24AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 06:56:54PM -0700, K. Y. Srinivasan wrote:
> > > > This patch is a continuation of the rescind handling cleanup work.
> > > > We cannot block in the global message handling work context
> > > > especially if we are blocking waiting for the host to wake us up. I
> > > > would like to thank Dexuan Cui <decui@microsoft.com> for observing
> > this problem.
> > > >
> > > > The current Linux 4.0 RC3 tree is broken and this patch fixes the problem.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: K. Y. Srinivasan <kys@microsoft.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/hv/channel_mgmt.c | 143
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> > > > drivers/hv/connection.c | 6 ++-
> > > > drivers/hv/hyperv_vmbus.h | 2 +-
> > > > 3 files changed, 107 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > This is a very big patch so late in the -rc cycle. Is there some
> > > patch that got merged in 4.0-rc1 that I should be reverting instead to
> > > fix things up?
> >
> > Make that, "this is a very large patch set", not just one patch. I can't take all
> > of these this late, sorry. Please just tell me what to revert.
>
> Greg,
>
> Would it be possible to pick up two patches. I could prune this down to two. The two I want you to
> pick up are (in the order of importance):
>
> [PATCH 1/6] Drivers: hv: vmbus: Perform device register in the per-channel work element
> [PATCH 2/6] Drivers: hv: hv_balloon: keep locks balanced on add_memory() failure
>
> If you could pickup an additional patch that would be:
>
> [PATCH 6/6] Drivers: hv: vmbus: Fix a bug in rescind processing in vmbus_close_internal()
>
> The first one is the most important one and if you can only pickup one, the first one is the one I want you to pick up.

You aren't answering my question, what happened that caused these to
become an error and break the 4.0-rc tree? Shouldn't I just revert a
recent change here? Or has things always been broken and no one has
noticed it before?

I need a lot more information here please.

Oh, and also, please wrap your email lines :)

> The third one fixes a memory leak issue that occurs only under
> certain conditions.

You need to describe those "certian conditions" better.

> We may have to revert more patches than applying the two patches that
> would fix the most important issues.

I can easly revert everything recently applied, which is much safer than
adding more patches on top of things. In fact, I prefer to do that, so
what git commit ids should I revert?

thanks,

greg k-h