From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Subject: Re: [PATCH] zram: set physical queue limits to avoid array out of
 bounds accesses
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
References: <95c31a93-32cd-ad06-6cc0-e11b42ec2f68@suse.de>
 <CAEwNFnAb4x+sm6=vWd1W4Xj7Snp1V_LtRRx9ORFKpm1b-58kyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <ed4d83a1-9bdd-9e24-7768-ba5e85429110@suse.de> <20170307085545.GA538@bbox>
 <10a2335c-0ed0-43de-1cbd-625845301aef@suse.de> <20170308051118.GA11206@bbox>
 <1073055f-e71b-bb07-389a-53b60ccdee20@suse.de> <20170309052829.GA854@bbox>
 <CAEwNFnBnEObVdjqNdvh_-Dc0ryDjeW3c1qVdfOCbbyQREaDdqA@mail.gmail.com>
 <d5ad0aeb-0a8f-5ebd-f788-c6f6d92b76cf@fb.com> <20170330234554.GC5807@bbox>
Cc: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>, Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>,
 Nitin Gupta <ngupta@vflare.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
 Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>, yizhan@redhat.com,
 Linux Block Layer Mailinglist <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
 Linux Kernel Mailinglist <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>
Message-ID: <17796bb7-6657-46d9-9731-d4c0656e6200@fb.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 19:38:26 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170330234554.GC5807@bbox>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
List-ID: <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>

On 03/30/2017 05:45 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 09:35:56AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 03/30/2017 09:08 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
>>> Hi Jens,
>>>
>>> It seems you miss this.
>>> Could you handle this?
>>
>> I can, but I'm a little confused. The comment talks about replacing
>> the one I merged with this one, I can't do that. I'm assuming you
>> are talking about this commit:
> 
> Right.
> 
>>
>> commit 0bc315381fe9ed9fb91db8b0e82171b645ac008f
>> Author: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
>> Date:   Mon Mar 6 11:23:35 2017 +0100
>>
>>     zram: set physical queue limits to avoid array out of bounds accesses
>>
>> which is in mainline. The patch still applies, though.
> 
> You mean it's already in mainline so you cannot replace but can revert.
> Right?
> If so, please revert it and merge this one.

Let's please fold it into the other patch. That's cleaner and it makes
logical sense.

>> Do we really REALLY need this for 4.11, or can we queue for 4.12 and
>> mark it stable?
> 
> Not urgent because one in mainline fixes the problem so I'm okay
> with 4.12 but I don't want mark it as -stable.

OK good, please resend with the two-line revert in your current
patch, and I'll get it queued up for 4.12.

-- 
Jens Axboe