On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 15:52:56 -0800 Danesh Petigara <dpetigara@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2/27/2015 1:24 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 15:39:45 -0800 Danesh Petigara <dpetigara@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> The CMA aligned offset calculation is incorrect for > >> non-zero order_per_bit values. > >> > >> For example, if cma->order_per_bit=1, cma->base_pfn= > >> 0x2f800000 and align_order=12, the function returns > >> a value of 0x17c00 instead of 0x400. > >> > >> This patch fixes the CMA aligned offset calculation. > > > > When fixing a bug please always describe the end-user visible effects > > of that bug. > > > > Without that information others are unable to understand why you are > > recommending a -stable backport. > > > > Thank you for the feedback. I had no crash logs to show, nevertheless, I > agree that a sentence describing potential effects of the bug would've > helped. What was the reason for adding a cc:stable? -- 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>