>On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 08:46:15AM +0800, yong w wrote: >> Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 于2022年9月13日周二 21:54?道： >> >> > >> > On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 09:09:47PM +0800, yong wrote: >> > > Hello, >> > > This patch is required to be patched in linux-5.4.y and linux-4.19.y. >> > >> > What is "this patch"? There is no context here :( >> > >> Sorry, I forgot to quote the original patch. the patch is as follows >> >> f27ce0e page_alloc: consider highatomic reserve in watermark fast >> >> > > In addition to that, the following two patches are somewhat related: >> > > >> > > 3334a45 mm/page_alloc: use ac->high_zoneidx for classzone_idx >> > > 9282012 page_alloc: fix invalid watermark check on a negative value >> > >> > In what way? What should be done here by us? >> > >> >> I think these two patches should also be merged. >> >> The classzone_idx parameter is used in the zone_watermark_fast >> functionzone, and 3334a45 use ac->high_zoneidx for classzone_idx. >> "9282012 page_alloc: fix invalid watermark check on a negative >> value" fix f27ce0e introduced issues > >Ok, I need an ack by all the developers involved in those commits, as >well as the subsystem maintainer so that I know it's ok to take them. > >Can you provide a series of backported and tested patches so that they >are easy to review? > >thanks, > >greg k-h Hello I didn't know my Act is needed to merge it. Acked-by: Jaewon Kim <jaewon31.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx> I don't understand well why the commit f27ce0e has dependency on 3334a45, though. Thank you Jaewon Kim
