Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm, hugetlb: allocation API and migration improvements
From: Andrew Morton
Date: Wed Jan 03 2018 - 19:05:29 EST
On Wed, 3 Jan 2018 10:32:07 +0100 Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I've posted this as an RFC [1] and both Mike and Naoya seem to be OK
> both with patches and the approach. I have rebased this on top of [2]
> because there is a small conflict in mm/mempolicy.c. I know it is late
> in the release cycle but similarly to [2] I would really like to see
> this in linux-next for a longer time for a wider testing exposure.
I'm interpreting this to mean "hold for 4.17-rc1"?