Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] mm: replace memmap_context by meminit_context

[Laurent Dufour]

Le 16/09/2020 à 09:52, David Hildenbrand a écrit :
> On 16.09.20 09:47, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> > Le 16/09/2020 à 09:40, Greg Kroah-Hartman a écrit :
> > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 09:29:22AM +0200, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> > > > Le 16/09/2020 à 08:33, Greg Kroah-Hartman a écrit :
> > > > > 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_context.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is no functional change introduced by this patch
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Suggested-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >     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(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > <formletter>
> > > > >
> > > > > 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-rules.html
> > > > > for how to do this properly.
> > > > >
> > > > > </formletter>
> > > >
> > > > 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 option
> > > > 1).
> > > >
> > > > Should the "Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" tag be on each patch of the series
> > > > even if the whole series has been sent to stable ?
> > >
> > > That should be on any patch you expect to show up in a stable kernel
> > > release.
> > >
> > > > Should the whole series sent again (v4) instead of sending a fix as a reply to ?
> > >
> > > 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 the
> > > right thing to do...)
> >
> > Thanks a lot Greg.
> >
> > I'll send that single patch again with the Cc: stable tag.
>
> I think Andrew can add that when sending upstream.

Andrew, can you do that?

> While a single patch to fix + backport would be nicer, I don't see an
> easy (!ugly) way to achieve the same without this cleanup.
>
> 1. We could rework patch #2 to pass a simple boolean flag, and a
> follow-on patch to pass the context. Not sure if that's any better.
>
> 2. We could rework patch #2 to pass memmap_context first, and modify
> patch #1 to also rename this instance.
>
> Maybe 2. might be reasonable (not sure if worth the trouble). @Greg any
> preference?
>
> > I don't think the patch 3 need to be backported, it doesn't fix any issue and
> > with the patch 1 and 2 applied, the BUG_ON should no more be triggered easily.
>
> Agreed.