Re: [PATCH v9 0/2] mm/vmscan: fix demotion targets checks in reclaim/demotion

[Bing Jiao <bingjiao@google.com>]

On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 04:00:11PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2026 20:53:01 +0000 Bing Jiao <bingjiao@google.com> wrote:
>
> > I’m resubmitting the full refreshed patch series together this time.
> > I just realized it is better to include the unmodified patches alongside
> > the modified ones to ensure compatibility with upstream automated tools
> > and to simplify your review process.
>
> No probs.
>
> [1/2] is cc:stable whereas [2/2] is not.  Ordinarily that means I must
> split the series apart (they take different routes) and often discard
> the [0/n].

Hi Andrew,

Thank you for the explanation. I appreciate the insight into the upstream
process and the time you have taken to review this series. I wish I had
known this earlier so as not to add to your workload.

> In this case I think I'll leave things as-is, so [1/2]'s entry into the
> -stable pipeline will occur a few weeks later.  I don't think the
> problem is serious enough to need super-fast-tracking?
>
> Hopefully this approach means we'll get some Reviewed-bys ;)

I agree that the issue does not require urgent fast-tracking, so leaving
the series as-is for the standard pipeline is appropriate.

Best regards,
Bing