On Sat, Jul 8, 2023 at 12:23 PM Linus Torvalds
[off-list ref] wrote:

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 at 12:17, Suren Baghdasaryan [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Do you want me to disable per-VMA locks by default as well?

No. I seriously believe that if the per-vma locking is so broken that
it needs to be disabled in a development kernel, we should just admit
failure, and revert it all.

And not in a "revert it for a later attempt" kind of way.

So it would be a "revert it because it added insurmountable problems
that we couldn't figure out" thing that implies *not* trying it again
in that form at all, and much soul-searching before somebody decides
that they have a more maintainable model for it all.

Got it. I hope that's not the case and so far we haven't received an
indication that the fixes were insufficient.

If stable decides that the fixes are not back-portable, and the whole
thing needs to be disabled for stable, that's one thing. But if we
decide that in mainline, it's a "this was a failure" thing.

The patches applied cleanly to 6.4.y stable branch the last time I
checked, so should not be a problem.
Thanks,
Suren.

           Linus

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel