On Mon, 25 Oct 2021 11:36:41 +0200 Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > My view on stable backport is similar to the previous patch. If we want > to have it there then let's wait for some time to see whether there are > any fallouts as this patch depends on the PF_OOM change. It's strange that [1/3] doesn't have cc:stable, but [2/3] and [3/3] do not. What is the thinking here? I expect we'd be OK with merging these into 5.16-rc1. This still gives another couple of months in -rc to shake out any problems. But I suspect the -stable maintainers will merge and release the patches before they are released in 5.16. In which case an alternative would be not to mark these patches cc:stable and to somehow remember to ask the -stable maintainers to merge them after 5.16 has been on the streets for a suitable period. Greg, thoughts?
