[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1401202204510.21729@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 22:08:09 -0800 (PST)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartmann <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] mm, memcg: avoid oom notification when current needs
access to memory reserves
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Greg Kroah-Hartmann wrote:
> > The patches getting proposed through -mm for stable boggles my mind
> > sometimes.
>
> Do you have any objections to patches that I have taken for -stable? If
> so, please let me know.
>
You've haven't taken the ones that I outlined in
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=138580717728759, so I'm happy that
those could be prevented. I'm identifying another patch here that is
pending in -mm that obviously violates the stable kernel rules and I don't
believe it should be annotated in a way that you'll scoop it up later.
The patch in question hasn't been tested by anybody and I don't think you
want such things to ever be merged into a stable kernel series.
--
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