On Mon 17-06-13 10:33:01, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 10:27:50AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 14-06-13 14:31:24, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > > > The patch below does not apply to the 3.9-stable tree. > > > If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm > > > tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit > > > id to <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>. > > > > Patch doesn't apply to 3.9 because the bug has been introduced by > > 5f578161 (memcg: relax memcg iter caching) merged after 3.9. > > Sorry, I should have spotted this earlier. > > I noted the version range like this: > > > > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxx> [3.10+] > > Greg, is there a better way to communicate this perhaps? I'm not sure > how much overhead it would save for you or if these applications to > different trees are fairly automated anyway. > > I would keep the annotations either way because it makes it easy to > check if the tree where the patch failed needs a backport or not. Does it make sense to mark patches for stable if the target version is not released yet? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html