On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 05:04:29AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 07:22:55 -0400 Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > We probably want to cc stable for this and the next one. How should > > these be routed? I can take these through percpu tree or mm works > > too. Either way, it'd be best to route them together. > > Yes, all three look like -stable material to me. I'll grab them later > in the week if you haven't ;) Tried to apply to percpu but the third one is a fix for a patch which was added to -mm during v3.12-rc1, so these are yours. :) > The names of the first two patches distress me. They rather clearly > assert that the code affects percpu_counter.[ch], but that is not the case. > Massaging is needed to fix that up. Yeah, something like the following would be better percpu: add test module for various percpu operations percpu: fix this_cpu_sub() subtrahend casting for unsigneds memcg: use __this_cpu_sub() to dec stats to avoid incorrect subtrahend casting Thanks. -- tejun -- 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>