On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 16:10:13 -0700 (PDT) Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 6 Apr 2012, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 12:51:49 -0400 > > Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > >> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxx > > > > Let Andrew do the stable work, ok? > > > > > > Fair point. I'm used to adding the Cc myself for things I push through the > > > arch/tile tree. This of course does make more sense to go through Andrew, > > > so I'll remove it. > > > > No, please do add the stable tag if you think it is needed. And ensure > > that the changelog explains why a backport is needed, by describing > > the user-visible effects of the bug. > > > > Tree-owners regularly forget to wonder if a patch should be backported > > and we end up failing to backport patches which should have been > > backported. If we have more people flagging backport patches, fewer > > patches will fall through the cracks. > > The resulting patch is okay; but let's reassure Chris that his > original patch was better, before he conceded to make the get_page > and put_page unconditional, and added unnecessary detail of the race. > Yes, the v1 patch was better. No reason was given for changing it? -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>