On 03/16/2018 02:35 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 17:18:02 -0400 Jerome Glisse <jgli...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 02:09:59PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: >>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 15:14:07 -0400 jgli...@redhat.com wrote: >>> >>>> From: Jérôme Glisse <jgli...@redhat.com> >>>> >>>> The #if/#else/#endif for IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HMM) were wrong. >>> >>> "were wrong" is not a sufficient explanation of the problem, especially >>> if we're requesting a -stable backport. Please fully describe the >>> effects of a bug when fixing it? >> >> Build issue (compilation failure) if you have multiple includes of >> hmm.h through different headers is the most obvious issue. So it >> will be very obvious with any big driver that include the file in >> different headers. > > That doesn't seem to warrant a -stable backport? The developer of such > a driver will simply fix the headers?
Right. For this patch, I would strongly request a -stable backport. It's really going to cause problems if anyone tries to use -stable with HMM, without this fix. thanks, -- John Hubbard NVIDIA > >> I can respin with that. Sorry again for not being more explanatory >> it is always hard for me to figure what is not obvious to others. > > I updated the changelog, no respin needed. >
