On Wed 27-10-21 15:36:08, 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? > > 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. My take on stable backports is http://lkml.kernel.org/r/YXZ6FMzJLEz4TA2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
