From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:37029 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753113AbdFLRVd (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jun 2017 13:21:33 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098409.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.20/8.16.0.20) with SMTP id v5CHInsf042870 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 13:21:32 -0400 Received: from e16.ny.us.ibm.com (e16.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.206]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2b1wbynpkf-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 13:21:32 -0400 Received: from localhost by e16.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 13:21:31 -0400 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 10:21:30 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linuc.decode@gmail.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] srcu: Allow use of Classic SRCU from both process and" failed to apply to 4.9-stable tree Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <149726987911656@kroah.com> <20170612163151.GW3721@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <20170612172130.GY3721@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 06:35:18PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 12/06/2017 18:31, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > Indeed, this won't apply cleanly to 4.9 and earlier because of some > > changes to the way SRCU works. And if you try to make the obvious > > adjustments to make the patch apply, you will break SRCU. > > > > So, question for Paolo... How important is it to push this back to > > v4.9 and earlier? To make this happen, some non-trivial SRCU changes > > would also need to be backported. > > Indeed I had noticed commit f2c4689640e9 ("srcu: Implement > more-efficient reader counts", 2017-01-25). It's not very important. OK, good to know. I haven't given up on it, so it might get done in any case, but no promises. Not yet, anyway. ;-) Thanx, Paul