On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 15:28:16 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 15:00:57 -0700 Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > Without refactoring the code that adds reclaim_state->reclaimed to > > > > scan_control->nr_reclaimed into a helper (flush_reclaim_state()), the > > > > change would need to be done in two places instead of one, and I > > > > wouldn't know where to put the huge comment. > > > > > > Well, all depends on how desirable it it that we backport. If "not > > > desirable" then leave things as-is. If at least "possibly desirable" > > > then a simple patch with the two changes and no elaborate comment will > > > suit. > > > > > > > I would rather leave the current series as-is with an elaborate > > comment. I can send a separate single patch as a backport to stable if > > this is something that we usually do (though I am not sure how to > > format such patch). > > -stable maintainers prefer to take something which has already been > accepted by Linus. > > The series could be as simple as > > simple-two-liner.patch > revert-simple-two-liner.patch > this-series-as-is.patch > > simple-two-liner.patch goes into 6.3-rcX and -stable. The other > patches into 6.4-rc1. But the key question remains: how desirable is a backport? Looking at the changelogs I'm not seeing a clear statement of the impact upon real-world users' real-world workloads. (This is a hint). So I am unable to judge. Please share your thoughts on this.
