On Sun, Oct 27 2013, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 05:04:29AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: >> On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 07:22:55 -0400 Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > We probably want to cc stable for this and the next one. How should >> > these be routed? I can take these through percpu tree or mm works >> > too. Either way, it'd be best to route them together. >> >> Yes, all three look like -stable material to me. I'll grab them later >> in the week if you haven't ;) > > Tried to apply to percpu but the third one is a fix for a patch which > was added to -mm during v3.12-rc1, so these are yours. :) I don't object to stable for the first two non-memcg patches, but it's probably unnecessary. I should have made it more clear, but an audit of v3.12-rc6 shows that only new memcg code is affected - the new mem_cgroup_move_account_page_stat() is the only place where an unsigned adjustment is used. All other callers (e.g. shrink_dcache_sb) already use a signed adjustment, so no problems before v3.12. Though I did not audit the stable kernel trees, so there could be something hiding in there. >> The names of the first two patches distress me. They rather clearly >> assert that the code affects percpu_counter.[ch], but that is not the case. >> Massaging is needed to fix that up. > > Yeah, something like the following would be better > > percpu: add test module for various percpu operations > percpu: fix this_cpu_sub() subtrahend casting for unsigneds > memcg: use __this_cpu_sub() to dec stats to avoid incorrect subtrahend casting No objection to renaming. Let me know if you want these reposed with updated titles. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
