Re: Stable backports

[Joseph Salisbury <joseph.salisbury@canonical.com>]

On 6/20/23 11:03, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been looking over my queue and which patches vanishes (as in
> applied somewhere) and did not show up in the stable tree. Here is a
> list of some suggestions:
>
> - 7eb16f23b9a41 ("io-mapping: don't disable preempt on RT in io_mapping_map_atomic_wc().")
> - 286deb7ec03d9 ("locking/rwbase: Mitigate indefinite writer starvation")
> - 1c0908d8e4416 ("rtmutex: Add acquire semantics for rtmutex lock acquisition slow path")
>    (is in v6.1 but not in v5.15)
> - b8a04a538ed47 ("revert: "softirq: Let ksoftirqd do its job"")
> - 38cdd83a47fb2 ("tracing/timer: Add missing hrtimer modes to decode_hrtimer_mode().")
>
> Sebastian
Hi Sebastian,

Thanks for the heads up on these commits!

It appears v5.15 will need these commits:

d15121be7485 ("revert: "softirq: Let ksoftirqd do its job"")
2951580ba6ad ("tracing/timer: Add missing hrtimer modes to 
decode_hrtimer_mode().")
7eb16f23b9a41 ("io-mapping: don't disable preempt on RT in 
io_mapping_map_atomic_wc().")
286deb7ec03d9 ("locking/rwbase: Mitigate indefinite writer starvation")

The following commit was already added to v5.15 in v5.15.109:

c15737965434 (rtmutex: Add acquire semantics for rtmutex lock 
acquisition slow path)


The latest two commits are still in linux-next and have not landed in 
mainline as of yet (d15121be7485 and 2951580ba6ad).  Should I wait to 
add them to the v5.15-rt stable tree and see if Greg adds them to his 
trees first?

Thanks,

Joe