On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 02:52:57PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > On Mon 28-05-18 15:39:04, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 1:04 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman > > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 4.16-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. > > > > > > > I do not have objections for applying this patch to stable, but AFAIK > > it is a correctness patch that doesn't fix any bug and it was mainly added > > as a prerequisite to memcg accounting of event allocations, which is not > > yet merged and not destined for stable. > > > > Jan? do you agree with my statements above? > > Yes, you are correct. The problem this patch tries to fix is theoretical in > nature at this point. However my feeling is stable tree has got rather > benevolent in accepting patches in last months and Greg wishes it stays that > way so I'm objecting only to patches I know introduce regressions at this > point. I am getting "more benevolent", but the patch should be there for at least some good reason. This one was picked by the "semi-automatic" checker, and at first glance seems like it is a real bugfix. But, as you mention, it was only needed in preparation for a future patch, then this patch is not needed in the stable trees, and I'll go drop it now. thanks, greg k-h
