From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FE5CC43387 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2019 15:23:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 681F120675 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2019 15:23:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730193AbfAKPXX (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jan 2019 10:23:23 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:34830 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729159AbfAKPXW (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jan 2019 10:23:22 -0500 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A131DA31E; Fri, 11 Jan 2019 15:23:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unknown [10.18.25.149]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB19F5C6C1; Fri, 11 Jan 2019 15:23:15 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 10:23:15 -0500 From: Mike Snitzer To: Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, Ming Lin , Christoph Hellwig , Xiao Ni , Mariusz Dabrowski , Ming Lei , Jens Axboe , Sudip Mukherjee Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.4 72/88] block: dont deal with discard limit in blkdev_issue_discard() Message-ID: <20190111152314.GA10825@redhat.com> References: <20190111131045.137499039@linuxfoundation.org> <20190111131058.120784730@linuxfoundation.org> <20190111142539.GA10601@redhat.com> <20190111143514.GA8530@kroah.com> <20190111150605.GA10771@redhat.com> <20190111151757.GA15261@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190111151757.GA15261@kroah.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.38]); Fri, 11 Jan 2019 15:23:22 +0000 (UTC) Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 11 2019 at 10:17am -0500, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 10:06:05AM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 11 2019 at 9:35am -0500, > > Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 09:25:39AM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 11 2019 at 9:08am -0500, > > > > Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > > > > > > 4.4-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. > > > > > > > > > > ------------------ > > > > > > > > > > From: Ming Lei > > > > > > > > > > commit 744889b7cbb56a64f957e65ade7cb65fe3f35714 upstream. > > > > > > > > Hi Greg, > > > > > > > > Please also pick up this commit: > > > > 89f5fa47476eda56402e29fff3c5097f5c2a1e19 ("dm: call blk_queue_split() to > > > > impose device limits on bios") > > > > > > That's going to be hard as the dependancy for that patch is not here in > > > 4.4.y, and this patch itself isn't even in anything older than 4.19.y. > > > > Right, I quickly replied to this thread with followup of the 3 prereq > > patches needed to get 89f5fa47476 to apply. > > > > > So why add it here to 4.4.y only? > > > > Because you're looking to pull in a commit into 4.4 that causes problems > > elsewhere. > > > > > Can you send the needed patch series to the stable@ mailing list for the > > > different stable trees if this needs to get into them? > > > > I'll try to get to that, but it is low priority for me. And in the > > meantime.. DM will be broken in 4.4 if you take 744889b7cb.. wheeeee. > > Ok, then I should drop this patch from 4.4, I can do that. Looks like > it's not in 4.9 either, so that's another good reason to not take it > here as well. > > Any objection to just dropping it? I'd prefer that for sure. I don't think the empty discard issue that commit 744889b7cbb56a64f957e65ade7cb65fe3f35714 addresses is worth the other DM breakage. But I'm biased ;) Mike