Tyrel Datwyler <tyr...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: > On 09/24/2018 07:30 AM, Nathan Fontenot wrote: ... >> >> Since we have not been able to re-create the failure with this patch would >> it be ok to pull in this patch while other options are explored? > > I think mpe initially applied this to -next. Not sure if he dropped > it, but I would definitely give a +1 to carrying this workaround for > now until we can put together an API that fully closes the gap. We are > hot with LPM blocked tests at the moment.
Yeah it's in next, I'm not going to drop it. Any fix would be an incremental fix on top. cheers
