[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=win03Q09XEpYmk51VTdoQJTitrr8ON9vgajrLxV8QHk2A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2019 09:50:50 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
Cc: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
Mikhail Zaslonko <zaslonko@...ux.ibm.com>,
Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ibm.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Mikhail Gavrilov <mikhail.v.gavrilov@...il.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com>,
Pasha Tatashin <Pavel.Tatashin@...rosoft.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@...rosoft.com>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 4.14 62/95] mm, memory_hotplug: initialize struct
pages for the full memory section
On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 9:31 AM Alexander Duyck
<alexander.duyck@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Wasn't this patch reverted in Linus's tree for causing a regression on
> some platforms? If so I'm not sure we should pull this in as a
> candidate for stable should we, or am I missing something?
Good catch. It was reverted in commit 4aa9fc2a435a ("Revert "mm,
memory_hotplug: initialize struct pages for the full memory
section"").
We ended up with efad4e475c31 ("mm, memory_hotplug:
is_mem_section_removable do not pass the end of a zone") instead (and
possibly others - this was just from looking for commit messages that
mentioned that reverted commit).
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists