On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 16:09:40 +0200
"Jason A. Donenfeld" wrote:
> >
> > I think "Depends-on" is the way to go, as it is *not* a stable thing, and
> > what is in stable rules is only about stable patches.
>
> How does "Depends-on" not spiral out of control? There's a *lot* of
> "Depends-on"
On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 10:14:58AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 10:42:28 +0200
> Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>
> > AFAICS that documented way is for a different situation? I assume you mean
> > this part:
> >
> > * Specify any additional patch prerequisites for cherry picking::
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 10:42:28 +0200
Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> AFAICS that documented way is for a different situation? I assume you mean
> this part:
>
> * Specify any additional patch prerequisites for cherry picking::
>
> Cc: # 3.3.x: a1f84a3: sched: Check for idle
>
> But that would
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 08:23:11 +0200
Greg KH wrote:
> > Depends-on: c9929f0e344a ("mm/slob: remove CONFIG_SLOB")
>
> Ick, no, use the documented way of handling this as described in the
> stable kernel rules file.
You mentioned this before, I guess you mean this:
> To send additional
On 11.06.24 10:42, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 6/11/24 8:23 AM, Greg KH wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 11:40:54PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>> On 6/10/24 10:36 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 08:46:42 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
>>> index
On 6/11/24 8:23 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 11:40:54PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 6/10/24 10:36 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> > On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 08:46:42 -0700
>> > "Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
>> >
>> >> > > index 7c29f4afc23d..338c52168e61 100644
>> >> > > ---
On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 11:40:54PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 6/10/24 10:36 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 08:46:42 -0700
> > "Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
> >
> >> > > index 7c29f4afc23d..338c52168e61 100644
> >> > > --- a/fs/tracefs/inode.c
> >> > > +++
On 6/10/24 10:36 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 08:46:42 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
>
>> > > index 7c29f4afc23d..338c52168e61 100644
>> > > --- a/fs/tracefs/inode.c
>> > > +++ b/fs/tracefs/inode.c
>> > > @@ -53,14 +53,6 @@ static struct inode *tracefs_alloc_inode(struct
On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 22:42:30 +0200
Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 6/10/24 5:46 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 11:22:23AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >> On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 10:27:17 +0200
> >> Julia Lawall wrote:
> >>
> >> > diff --git a/fs/tracefs/inode.c
On 6/10/24 5:46 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 11:22:23AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 10:27:17 +0200
>> Julia Lawall wrote:
>>
>> > diff --git a/fs/tracefs/inode.c b/fs/tracefs/inode.c
>> > index 7c29f4afc23d..338c52168e61 100644
>> > ---
On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 08:46:42 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
> > > index 7c29f4afc23d..338c52168e61 100644
> > > --- a/fs/tracefs/inode.c
> > > +++ b/fs/tracefs/inode.c
> > > @@ -53,14 +53,6 @@ static struct inode *tracefs_alloc_inode(struct
> > > super_block *sb)
> > > return >vfs_inode;
> >
On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 11:22:23AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 10:27:17 +0200
> Julia Lawall wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/fs/tracefs/inode.c b/fs/tracefs/inode.c
> > index 7c29f4afc23d..338c52168e61 100644
> > --- a/fs/tracefs/inode.c
> > +++ b/fs/tracefs/inode.c
> > @@
On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 10:27:17 +0200
Julia Lawall wrote:
> diff --git a/fs/tracefs/inode.c b/fs/tracefs/inode.c
> index 7c29f4afc23d..338c52168e61 100644
> --- a/fs/tracefs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/tracefs/inode.c
> @@ -53,14 +53,6 @@ static struct inode *tracefs_alloc_inode(struct
> super_block *sb)
>
Since SLOB was removed, it is not necessary to use call_rcu
when the callback only performs kmem_cache_free. Use
kfree_rcu() directly.
The changes were done using the following Coccinelle semantic patch.
This semantic patch is designed to ignore cases where the callback
function is used in
14 matches
Mail list logo
