Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 11 Jan 2019 16:44:53 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org,
        Ming Lin <ming.l@ssi.samsung.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Xiao Ni <xni@redhat.com>,
        Mariusz Dabrowski <mariusz.dabrowski@intel.com>,
        Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.4 72/88] block: dont deal with discard limit in
 blkdev_issue_discard()
Message-ID: <20190111154453.GA17051@kroah.com>
References: <20190111131045.137499039@linuxfoundation.org>
 <20190111131058.120784730@linuxfoundation.org>
 <20190111142539.GA10601@redhat.com>
 <20190111143514.GA8530@kroah.com>
 <20190111150605.GA10771@redhat.com>
 <20190111151757.GA15261@kroah.com>
 <20190111152314.GA10825@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190111152314.GA10825@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.2 (2019-01-07)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 10:23:15AM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 11 2019 at 10:17am -0500,
> Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 10:06:05AM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 11 2019 at  9:35am -0500,
> > > Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 09:25:39AM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Jan 11 2019 at  9:08am -0500,
> > > > > Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > 4.4-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ------------------
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > commit 744889b7cbb56a64f957e65ade7cb65fe3f35714 upstream.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hi Greg,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Please also pick up this commit:
> > > > > 89f5fa47476eda56402e29fff3c5097f5c2a1e19 ("dm: call blk_queue_split() to
> > > > > impose device limits on bios")
> > > > 
> > > > That's going to be hard as the dependancy for that patch is not here in
> > > > 4.4.y, and this patch itself isn't even in anything older than 4.19.y.
> > > 
> > > Right, I quickly replied to this thread with followup of the 3 prereq
> > > patches needed to get 89f5fa47476 to apply.
> > > 
> > > > So why add it here to 4.4.y only?
> > > 
> > > Because you're looking to pull in a commit into 4.4 that causes problems
> > > elsewhere.
> > >  
> > > > Can you send the needed patch series to the stable@ mailing list for the
> > > > different stable trees if this needs to get into them?
> > > 
> > > I'll try to get to that, but it is low priority for me.  And in the
> > > meantime.. DM will be broken in 4.4 if you take 744889b7cb.. wheeeee.
> > 
> > Ok, then I should drop this patch from 4.4, I can do that.  Looks like
> > it's not in 4.9 either, so that's another good reason to not take it
> > here as well.
> > 
> > Any objection to just dropping it?
> 
> I'd prefer that for sure.  I don't think the empty discard issue that
> commit 744889b7cbb56a64f957e65ade7cb65fe3f35714 addresses is worth the
> other DM breakage.  But I'm biased ;)

Ok, this was added because af097f5d199e ("block: break discard
submissions into the user defined size") was also wanting to be added to
the 4.4.y tree.  And this commit was "supposed" to be fixing a problem
in that commit.

I guess we should just stick with what we have in 4.4.y for now, as
there hasn't been any complaints :)

I'll drop both of these now, thanks.

greg k-h