Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] seqlock: seqcount_t call sites bugfixes

["Ahmed S. Darwish" <a.darwish@linutronix.de>]

On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 09:28:41AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 04:49:43PM +0200, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Since patch #7 and #8 from the series:
> >
> >    [PATCH v1 00/25] seqlock: Extend seqcount API with associated locks
> >    https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200519214547.352050-1-a.darwish@linutronix.de
> >
> > are now pending on the lockdep/x86 IRQ state tracking patch series:
> >
> >    [PATCH 00/14] x86/entry: disallow #DB more and x86/entry lockdep/nmi
> >    https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200529212728.795169701@infradead.org
> >
> >    [PATCH v3 0/5] lockdep: Change IRQ state tracking to use per-cpu variables
> >    https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200529213550.683440625@infradead.org
> >
> > This is a repost only of the seqcount_t call sites bugfixes that were on
> > top of the seqlock patch series.
> >
> > These fixes are independent, and can thus be merged on their own. I'm
> > reposting them now so they can at least hit -rc2 or -rc3.
>
> I'm confused on what I should do with patch 6 here for dma-buf. Looks like
> just a good cleanup/prep work, so I'd queue it for linux-next and 5.9, but
> sounds like you want this in earlier. Do you need this in 5.8-rc for some
> work meant for 5.9? Will this go in through some topic branch directly?
> Should I apply it?
>
> Patch itself lgtm, I'm just confused what I should do with it.
>

My apologies for the confusion. The cover letter is indeed misleading
w.r.t. the dma-buf patch.  It isn't a bugfix, so it shouldn't hit -rc.

Since without this patch compiling the seqcount series will fail, it
will be best to merge it through tip instead.

So all I need for now is a reviewed-by tag :) I will forwoard it to the
tip tree afterwards.

Thanks,

--
Ahmed S. Darwish
Linutronix GmbH