On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 18:02:53 -0800 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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.. Yes, I wondered. Sorry bout that. > 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? Wilco. > 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? Those are the ones. Five fixes, three with cc:stable.
