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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <160087928642.3520.17063139768910633998.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <CAPcyv4iPuRWSv_do_h8stU0-SiWxtKkQWvzBEU+78fDE6VffmA@mail.gmail.com> <20200930050455.GA6810@zn.tnic>
In-Reply-To: <20200930050455.GA6810@zn.tnic>
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 30 Sep 2020 08:49:42 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4j=eyVMbcnrGDGaPe4AVXy5pJwa6EapH3ePh+JdF6zxnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 0/2] Renovate memcpy_mcsafe with copy_mc_to_{user, kernel}
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Erwin Tsaur <erwin.tsaur@intel.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        0day robot <lkp@intel.com>,
        linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 10:05 PM Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 03:32:07PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > Given that Linus was the primary source of review feedback on these
> > patches and a version of them have been soaking in -next with only a
> > minor conflict report with vfs.git for the entirety of the v5.9-rc
> > cycle (left there inadvertently while I was on leave), any concerns
> > with me sending this to Linus directly during the merge window?
>
> What's wrong with them going through tip?

There's been a paucity of response on these after converging on the
feedback from Linus. They missed v5.9, and I started casting about for
what could be done to make sure they did not also miss v5.10 if the
quiet continued. The preference is still "through tip".

> But before that pls have a look at this question I have here:
>
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200929102512.GB21110@zn.tnic
>
> Thx.

Thanks, Boris, will do.