Date:   Tue, 31 Jan 2023 08:27:22 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     ruanjinjie <ruanjinjie@huawei.com>
Cc:     catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, haibinzhang@tencent.com,
        hewenliang4@huawei.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5.10] arm64: fix a concurrency issue in
 emulation_proc_handler()
Message-ID: <Y9jC2msv2q39+ZA1@kroah.com>
References: <20230131065211.2826133-1-ruanjinjie@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230131065211.2826133-1-ruanjinjie@huawei.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 02:52:11PM +0800, ruanjinjie wrote:
> This patch is addressing an issue in stable linux-5.10 only.
> 
> In linux-6.1, the related code is refactored in 124c49b1b("arm64:
> armv8_deprecated: rework deprected instruction handling") and
> this issue was incidentally fixed. However, the patch changes a lot and
> is not specific to this issue.

Then what about 5.15.y?  You can not upgrade to that kernel and have a
regression, right?

And nit, you need a ' ' before the '(' character.

But why can we just not take the original commit that fixed this issue?
That way almost always is the best (prevents regressions, makes
backports easier, is actually tested, etc.) ?

thanks,

greg k-h