On Fri, Sep 05, 2025 at 07:23:00PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 9/5/25 1:58 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 9/5/25 5:04 AM, Harshit Mogalapalli wrote:
diff --git a/include/linux/io_uring_types.h b/include/linux/io_uring_types.h index 5ce332fc6ff5..3b27d9bcf298 100644 --- a/include/linux/io_uring_types.h +++ b/include/linux/io_uring_types.h @@ -648,6 +648,8 @@ struct io_kiocb { struct io_task_work io_task_work; /* for polled requests, i.e. IORING_OP_POLL_ADD and async armed poll */ struct hlist_node hash_node;
- /* for private io_kiocb freeing */
- struct rcu_head rcu_head; /* internal polling, see IORING_FEAT_FAST_POLL */ struct async_poll *apoll; /* opcode allocated if it needs to store data for async defer */
This should go into a union with hash_node, rather than bloat the struct. That's how it was done upstream, not sure why this one is different?
Here's a test variant with that sorted. Greg, I never got a FAILED email on this one, as far as I can tell. When a patch is marked with CC: stable@vger.kernel.org and the origin of the bug clearly marked with Fixes, I'm expecting to have a 100% reliable notification if it fails to apply. If not, I just kind of assume patches flow into stable.
Was this missed on my side, or was it on the stable side? If the latter, how did that happen? I always ensure that stable has what it needs and play nice on my side, but if misses like this can happen with the tooling, that makes me a bit nervous.
This looks like a failure on my side, sorry. I don't see any FAILED email that went out for this anywhere, so I messed up.
sorry about that, and Harshit, thanks for noticing it.
greg k-h