Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 5 Mar 2019 18:12:48 -0800 | From | Guenter Roeck <> | Subject | Re: [RESEND PATCH v2] of: fix kmemleak crash caused by imbalance in early memory reservation |
| |
On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 04:12:24PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 3:50 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 10:03:09 -0600 Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 10:47 AM Marc Gonzalez <marc.w.gonzalez@free.fr> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 04/02/2019 15:37, Marc Gonzalez wrote: > > > > > > > > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 3.15+ > > > > > Fixes: 3f0c820664483 ("drivers: of: add initialization code for dynamic reserved memory") > > > > > Acked-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com> > > > > > Acked-by: Prateek Patel <prpatel@nvidia.com> > > > > > Tested-by: Marc Gonzalez <marc.w.gonzalez@free.fr> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com> > > > > > --- > > > > > Resend with DT CCed to reach robh's patch queue > > > > > I added CC: stable, Fixes, and Prateek's ack > > > > > Trim recipients list to minimize inconvenience > > > > > > > > I'm confused over commit 3532b3b554a216f30edb841d29eef48521bdc592 in linux-next > > > > "memblock: drop __memblock_alloc_base()" > > > > > > > > It's definitely going to conflict with the proposed patch > > > > over drivers/of/of_reserved_mem.c > > > > > > > > Rob, what's the next step then? > > > > > > Rebase it on top of what's in linux-next and apply it to the tree > > > which has the above dependency. I'm guessing that is Andrew Morton's > > > tree. > > > > Yeah, that is in Andrew's "post linux-next" patch series, so if you > > rebase it on top of linux-next and then send it to Andrew with some > > explanation. > > > > ... > > > > Actually, if it is intended for the stable trees, then presumably it is > > intended to go to Linus for the current release? In which case, the > > patch in Andrew's tree will have to be changed to cope after your patch > > appears in Linus' tree (and therefore, linux-next). > > At this point in the cycle, I wasn't planning to send this for 5.0. > It's not fixing something introduced in 5.0 and it is a debug feature. > Hi Rob,
this may be a debug feature, but we do test our kernels with it enabled, and the problem does affect our 4.19 branch (chromeos-4.19). Are you suggesting that we should backport the fix into our branch and not send the backport to -stable ?
No problem, just trying to avoid wasting our time.
Thanks, Guenter
| |