Re: [5.0.0 rc3 BUG] possible irq lock inversion dependency detected

[Mikhail Gavrilov]

On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 at 01:07, Mikhail Gavrilov
<mikhail.v.gavrilov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks, with this patch problem was gone.
> We have time land it in 5.1?
>

I received automated email with follow content:

> [This is an automated email]
>
> This commit has been processed because it contains a "Fixes:" tag,
> fixing commit: 1f50ddb4f418 x86/speculation: Handle HT correctly on AMD.
>
> The bot has tested the following trees: v5.0.7, v4.19.34, v4.14.111, v4.9.168, v4.4.178.
>
> v5.0.7: Build OK!
> v4.19.34: Build OK!
> v4.14.111: Build failed! Errors:
>     arch/x86/kernel/process.c:417:2: error: implicit declaration of function âlockdep_assert_irqs_disabledâ; did you mean âlockdep_assert_cpus_heldâ? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>
> v4.9.168: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:
>     01daf56875ee ("x86/speculation: Reorganize speculation control MSRs update")
>     26c4d75b2340 ("x86/speculation: Rename SSBD update functions")
>     5bfbe3ad5840 ("x86/speculation: Prepare for per task indirect branch speculation control")
>
> v4.4.178: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:
>     01daf56875ee ("x86/speculation: Reorganize speculation control MSRs update")
>     26c4d75b2340 ("x86/speculation: Rename SSBD update functions")
>     5bfbe3ad5840 ("x86/speculation: Prepare for per task indirect branch speculation control")
>     cc69b3498921 ("x86/bugs: Unify x86_spec_ctrl_{set_guest,restore_host}")
>
>
> How should we proceed with this patch?

So I wonder is any further actions are required for merging patch to mainline?

--
Best Regards,
Mike Gavrilov.