On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 4:27 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 5 patches, based on f1baf68e1383f6ed93eb9cff2866d46562607a43.
So this *completely* flummoxed 'b4', because you first sent the wrong
series, and then sent the right one in the same thread.
I fetched the emails manually, but honestly, this was confusing even
then, with two "[PATCH x/5]" series where the only way to tell the
right one was basically by date of email. They did arrive in the same
order in my mailbox, but even that wouldn't have been guaranteed if
there had been some mailer delays somewhere..
So next time when you mess up, resend it all as a completely new
series and completely new threading - so with a new header email too.
Please?
And since I'm here, let me just verify that yes, the series you
actually want me to apply is this one (as described by the head
email):
Subject: [patch 1/5] fs/binfmt_elf: fix PT_LOAD p_align values ..
Subject: [patch 2/5] fs/proc: task_mmu.c: don't read mapcount f..
Subject: [patch 3/5] mm: vmscan: remove deadlock due to throttl..
Subject: [patch 4/5] mm: memcg: synchronize objcg lists with a ..
Subject: [patch 5/5] kfence: make test case compatible with run..
and not the other one with GUP patches?
Linus
