From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89C19C4360F for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 20:16:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 635A72070D for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 20:16:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726184AbfDBUQd (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Apr 2019 16:16:33 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:38000 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725812AbfDBUQd (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Apr 2019 16:16:33 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E90F1AEA3; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 20:16:31 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1554236175.2828.5.camel@suse.de> Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/hugetlb: Get rid of NODEMASK_ALLOC From: Oscar Salvador To: Andrew Morton Cc: mike.kravetz@oracle.com, n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2019 22:16:15 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20190402130153.338e59c6cfda1ed3ec882517@linux-foundation.org> References: <20190402133415.21983-1-osalvador@suse.de> <20190402130153.338e59c6cfda1ed3ec882517@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.26.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2019-04-02 at 13:01 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > It took a bit of sleuthing to figure out that this patch applies to > Mike's "hugetlbfs: fix potential over/underflow setting node specific > nr_hugepages". Should they be folded together? I'm thinking not. Sorry Andrew, I should have mentioned that this patch was based on Mike's "hugetlb fix potential over/underflow" patch. Given said that, I would keep the two patches separated, as that one is a fix, and this one is a cleanup. > (Also, should "hugetlbfs: fix potential over/underflow setting node > specific nr_hugepages" have been -stableified? I also think not, but > I > bet it happens anyway). I am not sure of the consequences in older branches, but if it is not too much of a hassle, it might be worth? Mike might know better here. -- Oscar Salvador SUSE L3