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;
Date:   Thu, 21 Oct 2021 20:38:56 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc:     Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>,
        Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
        Marco Elver <elver@google.com>,
        Vijayanand Jitta <vjitta@codeaurora.org>,
        Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>,
        Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>,
        David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@gmail.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@gmail.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        Oliver Glitta <glittao@gmail.com>,
        Imran Khan <imran.f.khan@oracle.com>,
        lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: [next] [dragonboard 410c] Unable to handle kernel paging
 request at virtual address 00000000007c4240
Message-Id: <20211021203856.1151daebedef7b180fdfec22@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <2a692365-cfa1-64f2-34e0-8aa5674dce5e@suse.cz>
References: <CA+G9fYv3jAjBKHM-CjrMzNgrptx-rpYVmGaD39OBiBeuz7osfg@mail.gmail.com>
        <80ab567d-74f3-e14b-3c30-e64bbd64b354@suse.cz>
        <87fssuojoc.fsf@intel.com>
        <2a692365-cfa1-64f2-34e0-8aa5674dce5e@suse.cz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 19:51:20 +0200 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> wrote:

> >> Then we have to figure out how to order a fix between DRM and mmotm...
> > 
> > That is the question! The problem exists only in the merge of the
> > two. On current DRM side stack_depot_init() exists but it's __init and
> > does not look safe to call multiple times. And obviously my changes
> > don't exist at all in mmotm.
> > 
> > I guess one (admittedly hackish) option is to first add a patch in
> > drm-next (or drm-misc-next) that makes it safe to call
> > stack_depot_init() multiple times in non-init context. It would be
> > dropped in favour of your changes once the trees get merged together.
> > 
> > Or is there some way for __drm_stack_depot_init() to detect whether it
> > should call stack_depot_init() or not, i.e. whether your changes are
> > there or not?
> 
> Let's try the easiest approach first. AFAIK mmotm series is now split to
> pre-next and post-next part

It has been this way for many years!

> and moving my patch
> lib-stackdepot-allow-optional-init-and-stack_table-allocation-by-kvmalloc.patch
> with the following fixup to the post-next part should solve this. Would that
> work, Andrew? Thanks.

For this reason.  No probs, thanks.

I merge up the post-linux-next parts late in the merge window.  I do
need to manually check that the prerequisites are in mainline, because
sometimes the patches apply OK but don't make sense.