[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100105192617.GA9681@kroah.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 11:26:17 -0800
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
stable <stable@...nel.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [stable] [BUGFIX][PATCH v3] memcg: avoid oom-killing innocent
task in case of use_hierarchy
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 12:26:33PM +0900, Daisuke Nishimura wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:28:19 -0800
> Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 09:47:24AM +0900, Daisuke Nishimura wrote:
> > > Stable team.
> > >
> > > Cay you pick this up for 2.6.32.y(and 2.6.31.y if it will be released) ?
> > >
> > > This is a for-stable version of a bugfix patch that corresponds to the
> > > upstream commmit d31f56dbf8bafaacb0c617f9a6f137498d5c7aed.
> >
> > I've applied it to the .32-stable tree, but it does not apply to .31.
> > Care to provide a version of the patch for that kernel if you want it
> > applied there?
> >
> hmm, strange. I can apply it onto 2.6.31.9. It might conflict with other patches
> in 2.6.31.y queue ?
> Anyway, I've attached the patch that is rebased on 2.6.31.9. Please tell me if you
> have any problem with it.
>
> v3: rebased on 2.6.31.9
This version worked, thanks for regenerating it.
greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists