On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 01:09:11PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 12:27:20PM +0100, Sedat Dilek wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 05:12:45PM +0100, Sedat Dilek wrote: > > >> Hi Linus, > > >> > > >> I see two different commit-id for an identical patch (only subject > > >> line differs). > > >> [1] seems to be applied directly and [2] came with a merge of akpm-fixes. > > >> What is in case of backports for -stable kernels? > > > > > > I do not expect it to matter. I was going to use > > > 8fb74b9fb2b182d54beee592350d9ea1f325917a as the commit ID whenever I got > > > the complaint mail from Greg's tools about a 3.7 merge failure. The 3.7.2 > > > backport looks like this. > > > > > > > Oh cool and thanks! > > Are you planning to resend this backport-patch to the lists w/ a "3.7" > > (or for-3.7) in the commit-subject? > > > > Yes, when I get the reject mail from Greg's tools. You should have that rejection email now :) -- 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>