Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
IronPort-SDR: nu3nUjjlvEcBjuOaPn39TwfnSWSHlbTWknnyvAtHrbDeIJ2nM43GLqnEByLqXqOvA6QDpjY1Vu
 30oCyLl0FqdA==
From:   SeongJae Park <sjpark@amazon.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
CC:     SeongJae Park <sjpark@amazon.com>, <sashal@kernel.org>,
        <stable@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Re: Upstream fixes not merged in 5.4.y
Date:   Mon, 20 Jul 2020 14:31:07 +0200
Message-ID: <20200720123107.22001-1-sjpark@amazon.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200720121543.GA2984743@kroah.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 14:15:43 +0200 Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 04:28:05PM +0200, SeongJae Park wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > 
> > With my little script, I found below commits in the mainline tree are more than
> > 1 week old and fixing commits that back-ported in v5.4..v5.4.49, but not merged
> > in the stable/linux-5.4.y tree.  Are those need to be merged in but missed or
> > dealyed?
> > 
> > 9210c075cef2 ("nvme-pci: avoid race between nvme_reap_pending_cqes() and nvme_poll()")
> 
> I tried this first patch, and it doesn't apply to the 5.4.y tree, so are
> you sure you tried these yourself?
> 
> If so, please send a series of backported patches that you have
> successfully tested, or if a patch applies cleanly, just the git id.

Yes, I backported it on the latest 5.4.y before.  I will rebase it on the
latest 5.4.y, test, and send the patch.  Nonetheless, please note that it might
take some time (say, a couple of weeks?).


Thanks,
SeongJae Park