On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 10:22:56AM +0300, Vasily Averin wrote: > On 28.10.2021 01:36, Andrew Morton wrote: > > 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? > > My fault, I missed it. > All 3 patches should be backported, > I did it already to stables kernels since 4.4 and I'm ready to submit it in demand. > > > 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? > > If you wish I can remind Greg in a month or even after 5.17 release. Please remind us then, otherwise I will not remember :) thanks, greg k-h
