Re: [PATCH 2/3] Do not unconditionally treat zones that failzone_reclaim() as full

[Andrew Morton]

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:36:17 +0100 Mel Gorman <mel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 09:48:53AM -0400, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > It needs to be mentioned that this fixes a bug introduced in 2.6.19.
> > Possibly a portion of this code needs to be backported to stable.
> > 
> 
> Andrew has sucked up the patch already so I can't patch it. Andrew, there
> is a further note below on the patch if you'd like to pick it up.

OK.

> On the stable front, I'm think that patches 1 and 2 should being considered
> -stable candidates. Patch 1 is certainly needed because it fixes up the
> malloc() stall and should be picked up by distro kernels as well. This patch
> closes another obvious hole albeit one harder to trigger.
> 
> Ideally patch 3 would also be in -stable so distro kernels will suck it up
> as it will help identify this problem in the field if it occurs again but
> I'm not sure what the -stable policy is on such things are.

Well, I tagged the patches for stable but they don't apply at all well
to even 2.6.30 base.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/