On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 12:59:53AM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Mon, 11 Nov 2024, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > The patch below does not apply to the 6.6-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>. > > > > To reproduce the conflict and resubmit, you may use the following commands: > > > > git fetch https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/ linux-6.6.y > > git checkout FETCH_HEAD > > git cherry-pick -x f8f931bba0f92052cf842b7e30917b1afcc77d5a > > # <resolve conflicts, build, test, etc.> > > git commit -s > > git send-email --to '<stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>' --in-reply-to '2024111106-employer-bulgur-4f6d@gregkh' --subject-prefix 'PATCH 6.6.y' HEAD^.. > > Thanks for trying this: as expected, the v6.11 port was easy, > but earlier releases not. > > I've probably spent more effort on this v6.6 version than it deserves, > and folks may not even like the result: though I am fairly satisfied > with it by now, and testing has shown no problems. > > If I do go on to do v6.1 and earlier (not immediately), I won't approach > them in this way, but just do minimal patches to fix mem_cgroup_move_charge > and mem_cgroup_swapout (mem_cgroup_migrate was safe until v6.7). > > There's a tarball attached, containing the series of six backports needed > (three clean, three differing slightly from the originals). But let me > put inline below a squash of those six, so it's easier for all on Cc to > see what it amounts to without extracting the tarball. Based on v6.6.60, > no conflict with v6.6.61-rc1 Thanks for this! I accidentally commited this one "big patch" to the queue, but then realized the tarball was what I wanted, so went back and applied from there directly. Sorry for any confusing emails sent out about that. greg k-h
