From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vlastimil Babka Subject: Re: [PATCH] numa: Change get_mempolicy() to use nr_node_ids instead of MAX_NUMNODES Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 21:43:56 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20190211180245.22295-1-rcampbell@nvidia.com> <20190211112759.a7441b3486ea0b26dec40786@linux-foundation.org> <32575d26-b141-6985-833a-12d48c0dce6a@suse.cz> <20190228111110.564d84f62a1b294ca5b1f9df@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20190228111110.564d84f62a1b294ca5b1f9df@linux-foundation.org> Content-Language: en-US Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Andrew Morton Cc: rcampbell@nvidia.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, Waiman Long , Linux API , Alexander Duyck , Andi Kleen , Florian Weimer , Linus Torvalds , "stable@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On 2/28/19 8:11 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: >>> Secondly, 4fb8e5b89bcbbb ("include/linux/nodemask.h: use nr_node_ids >>> (not MAX_NUMNODES) in __nodemask_pr_numnodes()") introduced a >> >> There's no such commit, that sha was probably from linux-next. The patch is >> still in mmotm [1]. Luckily, I would say. Maybe Linus or some automation could >> run some script to check for bogus Fixes tags before accepting patches? > > Ah, that's a relief. > > How about we just drop "include/linux/nodemask.h: use nr_node_ids (not > MAX_NUMNODES) in __nodemask_pr_numnodes()" > (https://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/broken-out/include-linux-nodemaskh-use-nr_node_ids-not-max_numnodes-in-__nodemask_pr_numnodes.patch)? > It's just a cosmetic thing, really. Yeah the risk of breaking something is not worth it, IMHO.