"David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)" <[email protected]> writes: >> Coming back to the fixes tag. I did mention a bit of a history [2] of >> whatever I could find while reviewing this patch. I am not sure whether >> you have looked into the links shared in that email or not. Here [2]: >> >> [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/linuxppc-dev/[email protected]/ >> >> Where I am coming from is.. The current patch is acutally a partial >> revert of the patch mentioned in the fixes tag. That means if this patch >> gets applied to the older stable kernels, it would end up bringing the >> same problem back, which the "Fixes" tagged patch is fixing in the 1st >> place, isnt' it? See this discussion [3]... >> >> [3]: >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/T/#m0eee87b458d93559426b8b0e78dc6ebcd26ad3ae >> >> ... So, IMO - the right fixes tag, if we have to add, it should be the >> patch which moved the hpage_shift initialization to happen early i.e. in >> mmu_early_init_devtree. That would be this patch [4]: >> >> [4]: >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=2354ad252b66695be02f4acd18e37bf6264f0464 >> >> Now, it's not really that the patch [4] had any issue as such. But it >> seems like, that the current fix can only be applied after patch [4] is >> taken. >> >> Do we agree? > I think we should document all that in the cover letter, an describe > that this partial revert is only possible after [4],
Yes, I agree. Let's add the above details in the commit msg. > and that that must > be considered when attempting any kind of stable backports. Sure. I would prefer if we change the Fixes tag to the one which I pointed in above [4] (with explaination in the commit msg). However I am still ok if we would like to retain the existing fixes tag and show [4] as a dependency. -ritesh
