[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BBAAC58.80108@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2010 23:36:56 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
"Li, Shaohua" <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH]vmscan: handle underflow for get_scan_ratio
On 04/02/2010 05:13 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>>> Yeah, I don't want ignore .33-stable too. if I can't find the root cause
>>> in 2-3 days, I'll revert guilty patch anyway.
>>>
>>
>> It's a good idea to avoid fixing a bug one-way-in-stable,
>> other-way-in-mainline. Because then we have new code in both trees
>> which is different. And the -stable guys sensibly like to see code get
>> a bit of a shakedown in mainline before backporting it.
>>
>> So it would be better to merge the "simple" patch into mainline, tagged
>> for -stable backporting. Then we can later implement the larger fix in
>> mainline, perhaps starting by reverting the "simple" fix.
>
> .....ok. I don't have to prevent your code maintainship. although I still
> think we need to fix the issue completely.
Agreed on the revert.
Acked-by: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
--
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