From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754731AbeE2G5s (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 May 2018 02:57:48 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:36196 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751444AbeE2G5q (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 May 2018 02:57:46 -0400 Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 08:57:25 +0200 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Jan Kara Cc: Amir Goldstein , linux-kernel , stable , Sasha Levin Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.16 231/272] fanotify: Avoid lost events due to ENOMEM for unlimited queues Message-ID: <20180529065725.GA2473@kroah.com> References: <20180528100240.256525891@linuxfoundation.org> <20180528100259.797799079@linuxfoundation.org> <20180528125257.bppijdymfnsr3yqz@quack2.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180528125257.bppijdymfnsr3yqz@quack2.suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.0 (2018-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 02:52:57PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > On Mon 28-05-18 15:39:04, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 1:04 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman > > wrote: > > > 4.16-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. > > > > > > > I do not have objections for applying this patch to stable, but AFAIK > > it is a correctness patch that doesn't fix any bug and it was mainly added > > as a prerequisite to memcg accounting of event allocations, which is not > > yet merged and not destined for stable. > > > > Jan? do you agree with my statements above? > > Yes, you are correct. The problem this patch tries to fix is theoretical in > nature at this point. However my feeling is stable tree has got rather > benevolent in accepting patches in last months and Greg wishes it stays that > way so I'm objecting only to patches I know introduce regressions at this > point. I am getting "more benevolent", but the patch should be there for at least some good reason. This one was picked by the "semi-automatic" checker, and at first glance seems like it is a real bugfix. But, as you mention, it was only needed in preparation for a future patch, then this patch is not needed in the stable trees, and I'll go drop it now. thanks, greg k-h