From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751631AbcFSIhp (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Jun 2016 04:37:45 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:46778 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751239AbcFSIhk (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Jun 2016 04:37:40 -0400 From: Vitaly Kuznetsov To: Bjorn Helgaas Cc: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devel@linuxdriverproject.org, Bjorn Helgaas , Haiyang Zhang , "K. Y. Srinivasan" , Jake Oshins Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] PCI: hv: fix a couple of issues in hv_pci_onchannelcallback() References: <1464617879-19581-1-git-send-email-vkuznets@redhat.com> <20160610235336.GA16462@localhost> <20160617174451.GA1977@localhost> Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 10:37:33 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20160617174451.GA1977@localhost> (Bjorn Helgaas's message of "Fri, 17 Jun 2016 12:44:51 -0500") Message-ID: <87fus9k20i.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.28]); Sun, 19 Jun 2016 08:37:39 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Bjorn Helgaas writes: > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 06:53:36PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >> On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 04:17:57PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: >> > kmemleak helped me to identify a memory leak in hv_pci_onchannelcallback() >> > and while fixing it I stumbled upon an unrelated issue(s) there. >> > >> > Vitaly Kuznetsov (2): >> > PCI: hv: don't leak buffer in hv_pci_onchannelcallback() >> > PCI: hv: handle all pending messages in hv_pci_onchannelcallback() >> >> I applied both to for-linus for v4.7 with Jake's acks, thanks, Vitaly. > > Somehow I must have been thinking these were fixes for things we > merged or broke during the v4.7 merge window, but that doesn't look > like the case. So I'm going to merge these for v4.8 instead, on the > theory that the v4.7-rc cycles are primarily for stabilization. Right, this is not a 4.7 regression. Thanks! -- Vitaly