Re: [PATCH v4.9.y] Fixes: Commit 3c226c637b69 ("mm: numa: avoid waiting on freed migrated pages")
On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 05:23:28AM -0400, Chas Williams wrote:
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 5:18 AM Nathan Chancellor natechancellor@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 11:05:15AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 04:58:52AM -0400, Chas Williams wrote:
From: Chas Williams chas3@att.com
Commit 3c226c637b69 ("mm: numa: avoid waiting on freed migrated pages") was an incomplete backport of the upstream commit. It is necessary to always reset page_nid before attempting any early exit.
mm/huge_memory.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
<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>
This is an issue with the 4.9 tree, not mainline. The hash is incorrect but the problem appears valid.
Unfortunately, this issue doesn't fit into option 1, 2 or 3. I could only do option 4.
Ok, but if so, you need to at least sign-off on your patch, right? :)
Also, call it out explicitly what you are trying to do here, and why the patch is not upstream, so I know what is going on.
thanks,
greg k-h
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 5:33 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 05:23:28AM -0400, Chas Williams wrote:
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 5:18 AM Nathan Chancellor natechancellor@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 11:05:15AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 04:58:52AM -0400, Chas Williams wrote:
From: Chas Williams chas3@att.com
Commit 3c226c637b69 ("mm: numa: avoid waiting on freed migrated pages") was an incomplete backport of the upstream commit. It is necessary to always reset page_nid before attempting any early exit.
mm/huge_memory.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
<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>
This is an issue with the 4.9 tree, not mainline. The hash is incorrect but the problem appears valid.
Unfortunately, this issue doesn't fit into option 1, 2 or 3. I could only do option 4.
Ok, but if so, you need to at least sign-off on your patch, right? :)
I can. I wasn't clear to me since I am just fixing what the original author wrote.
Also, call it out explicitly what you are trying to do here, and why the patch is not upstream, so I know what is going on.
How would you like this done? I thought the body of the commit message was fairly clear (with the exception of the hash).
thanks,
greg k-h
On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 05:41:40AM -0400, Chas Williams wrote:
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 5:33 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 05:23:28AM -0400, Chas Williams wrote:
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 5:18 AM Nathan Chancellor natechancellor@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 11:05:15AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 04:58:52AM -0400, Chas Williams wrote:
From: Chas Williams chas3@att.com
Commit 3c226c637b69 ("mm: numa: avoid waiting on freed migrated pages") was an incomplete backport of the upstream commit. It is necessary to always reset page_nid before attempting any early exit.
mm/huge_memory.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
<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>
This is an issue with the 4.9 tree, not mainline. The hash is incorrect but the problem appears valid.
Unfortunately, this issue doesn't fit into option 1, 2 or 3. I could only do option 4.
Ok, but if so, you need to at least sign-off on your patch, right? :)
I can. I wasn't clear to me since I am just fixing what the original author wrote.
We can not take a patch without a signed-off-by, that's for any kernel patch, nothing special about stable trees here.
Also, call it out explicitly what you are trying to do here, and why the patch is not upstream, so I know what is going on.
How would you like this done? I thought the body of the commit message was fairly clear (with the exception of the hash).
Summarize the other info in this thread there as well.
thanks,
greg k-h
linux-stable-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Chas Williams -
Greg Kroah-Hartman