On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 19:03:36 -0400 Jerome Glisse <jgli...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > That sounds a bit serious. Was a -stable backport considered? > > Like discuss previously with Michal, for lack of upstream user yet > (and PowerPC users of this code are not upstream either yet AFAIK). > > Once i get HMM inside nouveau upstream, i will evaluate if people > wants all fixes to be back ported to stable. > > Finaly this one isn't too bad, it just burn CPU cycles by forcing > CPU to take a second fault on write access ie double fault the same > address. There is no corruption or incorrect states (it behave as > a COWed page from a fork with a mapcount of 1). OK, I updated the changelog with this info. > Do you still want me to be more aggressive with stable backport ? > I don't mind either way. I expect to get HMM nouveau upstream over > next couple release cycle. I guess that doing a single, better-organized cherrypick at a suitable time in the future is a good approach. You might want to discuss this plan with Greg before committing too far.
