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=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,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 6B476C76186 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 16:32:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AC662239F for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 16:32:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2390872AbfGWQcr (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jul 2019 12:32:47 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:43200 "EHLO verein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1731167AbfGWQcr (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jul 2019 12:32:47 -0400 Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 1084268B02; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 18:32:45 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 18:32:44 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Jason Gunthorpe Cc: Christoph Hellwig , =?iso-8859-1?B?Suly9G1l?= Glisse , Ben Skeggs , Ralph Campbell , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org" , "dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: hmm_range_fault related fixes and legacy API removal v2 Message-ID: <20190723163244.GE1655@lst.de> References: <20190722094426.18563-1-hch@lst.de> <20190723152737.GO15331@mellanox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190723152737.GO15331@mellanox.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 03:27:41PM +0000, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > Ignoring the STAGING issue I've tried to use the same guideline as for > -stable for -rc .. > > So this is a real problem, we definitely hit the locking bugs if we > retry/etc under stress, so I would be OK to send it to Linus for > early-rc. > > However, it doesn't look like the 1st patch is fixing a current bug > though, the only callers uses blocking = true, so just the middle > three are -rc? nonblocking isn't used anywher, but it is a major, major API bug. Your call, but if it was my tree I'd probably send it to Linus.