Re: [PATCH RT 19/25] userfaultfd: Use a seqlock instead of seqcount

From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
Date: Mon Feb 24 2020 - 04:03:29 EST

Next message: Kiyanovski, Arthur: "RE: [PATCH net-next v1 12/18] net/amazon: Ensure that driver version is aligned to the linux kernel"
Previous message: Parth Shah: "[PATCH v4 4/4] sched/core: Add permission checks for setting the latency_nice value"
Next in thread: Tom Zanussi: "Re: [PATCH RT 19/25] userfaultfd: Use a seqlock instead of seqcount"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On 2020-02-21 15:24:47 [-0600], zanussi@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> v4.14.170-rt75-rc1 stable review patch.
> If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

This is required but it is not part of the next "higher" tree
(v4.19-RT). Which means if someone moves from v4.14-RT to the next tree
(v4.19-RT in this case) that someone would have the bug again.

Could you please wait with such patches or did the I miss the v4.19-RT
tree with this change?

Sebastian

Next message: Kiyanovski, Arthur: "RE: [PATCH net-next v1 12/18] net/amazon: Ensure that driver version is aligned to the linux kernel"
Previous message: Parth Shah: "[PATCH v4 4/4] sched/core: Add permission checks for setting the latency_nice value"
Next in thread: Tom Zanussi: "Re: [PATCH RT 19/25] userfaultfd: Use a seqlock instead of seqcount"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]