On 2025-03-03 11:30, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 03.03.25 11:22, Ryan Roberts wrote:[snip]
>>
>> I didn't actually cc stable on these, I'm wondering if I should do that?
>> Perhaps
>> for all patches except the pagemap change?
>
> That would make sense to me. CC stable likely doesn't hurt here.
On 03.03.25 11:22, Ryan Roberts wrote:
On 03/03/2025 08:52, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 03.03.25 09:49, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 02.03.25 15:55, Ryan Roberts wrote:
The docs, implementations and use of arch_[enter|leave]_lazy_mmu_mode()
is a bit of a mess (to put it politely). There are a n
On 03/03/2025 08:52, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 03.03.25 09:49, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 02.03.25 15:55, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>> The docs, implementations and use of arch_[enter|leave]_lazy_mmu_mode()
>>> is a bit of a mess (to put it politely). There are a number of issues
>>> related to
On 03.03.25 09:49, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 02.03.25 15:55, Ryan Roberts wrote:
The docs, implementations and use of arch_[enter|leave]_lazy_mmu_mode()
is a bit of a mess (to put it politely). There are a number of issues
related to nesting of lazy mmu regions and confusion over whether the
t
On 02.03.25 15:55, Ryan Roberts wrote:
The docs, implementations and use of arch_[enter|leave]_lazy_mmu_mode()
is a bit of a mess (to put it politely). There are a number of issues
related to nesting of lazy mmu regions and confusion over whether the
task, when in a lazy mmu region, is preemptibl
The docs, implementations and use of arch_[enter|leave]_lazy_mmu_mode()
is a bit of a mess (to put it politely). There are a number of issues
related to nesting of lazy mmu regions and confusion over whether the
task, when in a lazy mmu region, is preemptible or not. Fix all the
issues relating to
