On 5/17/26 20:03, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Sun, May 17, 2026 at 02:47:55PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: >> On Wed, May 13, 2026 at 12:38:01PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >>> On 5/11/26 19:54, Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote: >>>> From: "Paul E. McKenney" <[email protected]> >>>> >>>> While an srcu_struct structure is in the midst of switching from CPU-0 >>>> to all-CPUs state, it can attempt to invoke callbacks for CPUs that >>>> have never been online. Worse yet, it can attempt in invoke callbacks >>>> for CPUs that never will be online, even including imaginary CPUs not in >>>> cpu_possible_mask. This can cause hangs on s390, >>> >>> Uladzislau, Paul, according to the fixes tag below this change fixes a >>> change that went into 7.0-rc6 -- and apparently causes a "hang" on some >>> architectures. So shouldn't this be heading to mainline instead of >>> -next? Ideally with a stable tag to ensure backporting to 7.0.y, but >>> that is a separate decision? >>> >> I assume it will be picked to stable
Thx for the reply. This answered the second aspect I raised. What about the first: shouldn't this be heading to mainline this cycle, ideally quite soon? Or is this the plan and I misinterpreted the "-next" in the subject? Sadly Jiri (now CCed) afaics didn't yet report if this fix helped to fix the issues they were seeing, but it sounded a lot like it was likely: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ >> since there is a "Fixes:" tag. From >> the other hand i can explicitly update commit message with Cc: >> [email protected] >> >> Paul, any thoughts? > > The "Fixes" tag should cover it. Often it does, yes, but it might be silently dropped for one reason or another. So in the end only a stable tag will guarantee backporting attempt by the stable team. Site note: I recently also tried to persuade Greg to also take those with a stable tag first in case there is a huge backlog. Ciao, Thorsten
