On 07/22/2016 09:44 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 14:26:19 +0200 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 07/22/2016 08:37 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: >>> On Thu 21-07-16 16:53:09, Michal Hocko wrote: >>>> From d64815758c212643cc1750774e2751721685059a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >>>> From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> >>>> Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 16:40:59 +0200 >>>> Subject: [PATCH] Revert "mm, mempool: only set __GFP_NOMEMALLOC if there are >>>> free elements" >>>> >>>> This reverts commit f9054c70d28bc214b2857cf8db8269f4f45a5e23. >>> >>> I've noticed that Andrew has already picked this one up. Is anybody >>> against marking it for stable? >> >> It would be strange to have different behavior with known regression in >> 4.6 and 4.7 stables. Actually, there's still time for 4.7 proper? >> > > I added the cc:stable. > > Do we need to bust a gut to rush it into 4.7? It sounds safer to let > it bake for a while, fix it in 4.7.1? Yeah, I guess it's safer to wait now. Would be different if the reverted commit went in the same cycle. > > -- > To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in > the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, > see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . > Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a> > -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>