Re: [PATCH 2/3] Do not unconditionally treat zones that failzone_reclaim() as full

[Mel Gorman]

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 08:44:56AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:36:17 +0100 Mel Gorman <mel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 09:48:53AM -0400, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > > It needs to be mentioned that this fixes a bug introduced in 2.6.19.
> > > Possibly a portion of this code needs to be backported to stable.
> > > 
> > 
> > Andrew has sucked up the patch already so I can't patch it. Andrew, there
> > is a further note below on the patch if you'd like to pick it up.
> 
> OK.
> 
> > On the stable front, I'm think that patches 1 and 2 should being considered
> > -stable candidates. Patch 1 is certainly needed because it fixes up the
> > malloc() stall and should be picked up by distro kernels as well. This patch
> > closes another obvious hole albeit one harder to trigger.
> > 
> > Ideally patch 3 would also be in -stable so distro kernels will suck it up
> > as it will help identify this problem in the field if it occurs again but
> > I'm not sure what the -stable policy is on such things are.
> 
> Well, I tagged the patches for stable but they don't apply at all well
> to even 2.6.30 base.
> 

What's the proper way to handle such a situation? Wait until the patches
go to mainline and post a rebased version to stable?

-- 
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student                          Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick                         IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/