From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail191.messagelabs.com (mail191.messagelabs.com [216.82.242.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B05BA6B01F2 for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2010 23:37:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4BBAAC58.80108@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2010 23:36:56 -0400 From: Rik van Riel MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH]vmscan: handle underflow for get_scan_ratio References: <20100331145602.03A7.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100401151639.a030fb10.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20100402180812.646D.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20100402180812.646D.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: KOSAKI Motohiro Cc: Andrew Morton , Wu Fengguang , "Li, Shaohua" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" List-ID: On 04/02/2010 05:13 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: >>> Yeah, I don't want ignore .33-stable too. if I can't find the root cause >>> in 2-3 days, I'll revert guilty patch anyway. >>> >> >> It's a good idea to avoid fixing a bug one-way-in-stable, >> other-way-in-mainline. Because then we have new code in both trees >> which is different. And the -stable guys sensibly like to see code get >> a bit of a shakedown in mainline before backporting it. >> >> So it would be better to merge the "simple" patch into mainline, tagged >> for -stable backporting. Then we can later implement the larger fix in >> mainline, perhaps starting by reverting the "simple" fix. > > .....ok. I don't have to prevent your code maintainship. although I still > think we need to fix the issue completely. Agreed on the revert. Acked-by: Rik van Riel -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org