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

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 11:28:30 +0100 Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie> wrote:

> 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@csn.ul.ie> 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?

Yes please.  I assume that when Greg&Chris try to apply the patch,
we'll hear squawks to remind us of this.

Of course, it'd be better if the patch didn't get rejects.  Perhaps
whatever-patch-clashed should also be backported.