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=-8.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 DA780C433E2 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 07:47:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 553E62083B for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 07:47:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.b="n76hj7Ka" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 553E62083B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id E3A028E0001; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 03:47:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id D74AD6B005D; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 03:47:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id C5C9B8E0001; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 03:47:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0192.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.192]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADD716B005C for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 03:47:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin22.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AD403632 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 07:47:30 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77268144660.22.cub75_020689927118 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin22.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3609318038E60 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 07:47:30 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: cub75_020689927118 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 6784 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) by imf47.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 07:47:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098420.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 08G7W8lP190604; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 03:47:25 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=subject : to : cc : references : from : message-id : date : mime-version : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=uxNCl8fFFusJ76v2vIytAowtk1X716+rWi0oOl4u+bw=; b=n76hj7KaNiOEAYfMSv3s+ih7Y75GZ+pj5lqi1Qg+tdnfZn+pjksN3TtMiXYuvvlNlhMQ LzIRF/hw0j2GL1o1yonC1TXbWHpw9OHvjzUhZtnQFd/5Yd78PRCSYx4FSWfXm3tl4s1N X70yNEwthH19GfaMHx+w9t15Q9Awv4NCw60EnHaM7gcy37XP6VbXaIdhDeK0xaXFA75q 6+6iwhaRGR8Af1fnzkiisXoBUn70TwSMBI6u+H2MiiW9+UpyEDZ+ZMCWQOoyRGJnqQaA rP8wwBM23LiJtwfZgEdjbXAPZVqKnE0CfS5+KyawDUJbNEHKmb6o+BC4MOPiAgA7l5L7 ZQ== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 33kd95jasn-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 16 Sep 2020 03:47:25 -0400 Received: from m0098420.ppops.net (m0098420.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 08G7WOjm191455; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 03:47:24 -0400 Received: from ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com (62.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.98]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 33kd95jarc-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 16 Sep 2020 03:47:24 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 08G7gx15010357; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 07:47:22 GMT Received: from b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay10.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.195]) by ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 33k6esgcjv-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 16 Sep 2020 07:47:21 +0000 Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.61]) by b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 08G7lJdk24445202 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 16 Sep 2020 07:47:19 GMT Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28E7B11C05E; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 07:47:19 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 958C811C050; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 07:47:18 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pomme.local (unknown [9.145.183.110]) by d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 07:47:18 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] mm: replace memmap_context by meminit_context To: Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, David Hildenbrand , Oscar Salvador , mhocko@suse.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, "Rafael J . Wysocki" , nathanl@linux.ibm.com, cheloha@linux.ibm.com, Tony Luck , Fenghua Yu , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org References: <20200915121541.GD4649@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200915132624.9723-1-ldufour@linux.ibm.com> <20200916063325.GK142621@kroah.com> <0b3f2eb1-0efa-a491-c509-d16a7e18d8e8@linux.ibm.com> <20200916074047.GA189144@kroah.com> From: Laurent Dufour Message-ID: <9e8d38b9-3875-0fd8-5f28-3502f33c2c34@linux.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 09:47:18 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200916074047.GA189144@kroah.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235,18.0.687 definitions=2020-09-16_02:2020-09-15,2020-09-16 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 impostorscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxscore=0 priorityscore=1501 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxlogscore=536 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 clxscore=1015 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2009160051 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 3609318038E60 X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 100.00] X-Rspamd-Server: rspam01 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: Le 16/09/2020 =C3=A0 09:40, Greg Kroah-Hartman a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0: > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 09:29:22AM +0200, Laurent Dufour wrote: >> Le 16/09/2020 =C3=A0 08:33, Greg Kroah-Hartman a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0: >>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 03:26:24PM +0200, Laurent Dufour wrote: >>>> The memmap_context enum is used to detect whether a memory operation= is due >>>> to a hot-add operation or happening at boot time. >>>> >>>> Make it general to the hotplug operation and rename it as meminit_co= ntext. >>>> >>>> There is no functional change introduced by this patch >>>> >>>> Suggested-by: David Hildenbrand >>>> Signed-off-by: Laurent Dufour >>>> --- >>>> arch/ia64/mm/init.c | 6 +++--- >>>> include/linux/mm.h | 2 +- >>>> include/linux/mmzone.h | 11 ++++++++--- >>>> mm/memory_hotplug.c | 2 +- >>>> mm/page_alloc.c | 10 +++++----- >>>> 5 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) >>> >>> >>> >>> This is not the correct way to submit patches for inclusion in the >>> stable kernel tree. Please read: >>> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-ru= les.html >>> for how to do this properly. >>> >>> >> >> Hi Greg, >> >> I'm sorry, I read that document few days ago before sending the series= and >> again this morning, but I can't figure out what I missed (following op= tion >> 1). >> >> Should the "Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org" tag be on each patch of the se= ries >> even if the whole series has been sent to stable ? >=20 > That should be on any patch you expect to show up in a stable kernel > release. >=20 >> Should the whole series sent again (v4) instead of sending a fix as a = reply to ? >=20 > It's up to the maintainer what they want, but as it is, this patch is > not going to end up in stable kernel release (which it looks like is th= e > right thing to do...) Thanks a lot Greg. I'll send that single patch again with the Cc: stable tag. I don't think the patch 3 need to be backported, it doesn't fix any issue= and=20 with the patch 1 and 2 applied, the BUG_ON should no more be triggered ea= sily. Laurent.