From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from LGEAMRELO13.lge.com ([156.147.23.53]:34601 "EHLO lgeamrelo13.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751058AbdDCFLQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Apr 2017 01:11:16 -0400 Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 14:11:13 +0900 From: Minchan Kim To: Jens Axboe CC: Johannes Thumshirn , Hannes Reinecke , Nitin Gupta , Christoph Hellwig , Sergey Senozhatsky , , Linux Block Layer Mailinglist , Linux Kernel Mailinglist , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] zram: set physical queue limits to avoid array out of bounds accesses Message-ID: <20170403051113.GA7096@bbox> References: <20170307085545.GA538@bbox> <10a2335c-0ed0-43de-1cbd-625845301aef@suse.de> <20170308051118.GA11206@bbox> <1073055f-e71b-bb07-389a-53b60ccdee20@suse.de> <20170309052829.GA854@bbox> <20170330234554.GC5807@bbox> <17796bb7-6657-46d9-9731-d4c0656e6200@fb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <17796bb7-6657-46d9-9731-d4c0656e6200@fb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-block@vger.kernel.org Hi Jens, On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 07:38:26PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > 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 > >> 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. Understood. > > >> 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. Yeb. If so, now that I think about it, it would be better to handle it via Andrew's tree because Andrew have been handled zram's patches and I have several pending patches based on it. So, I will send new patchset with it to Andrew. Thanks!