From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761423AbZE0XVR (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 May 2009 19:21:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754971AbZE0XVD (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 May 2009 19:21:03 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:50210 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753746AbZE0XVC (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 May 2009 19:21:02 -0400 Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 01:19:49 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Andrew Morton Cc: Mel Gorman , stable@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk, Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com, kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, starlight@binnacle.cx, ebmunson@us.ibm.com, agl@us.ibm.com, apw@canonical.com, wli@movementarian.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Fixes for hugetlbfs-related problems on shared memory Message-ID: <20090527231949.GB30002@elte.hu> References: <1243422749-6256-1-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> <20090527131437.5870e342.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090527131437.5870e342.akpm@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 27 May 2009 12:12:27 +0100 > Mel Gorman wrote: > > > The following two patches are required to fix problems reported by > > starlight@binnacle.cx. The tests cases both involve two processes interacting > > with shared memory segments backed by hugetlbfs. > > Thanks. > > Both of these address > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13302, yes? I added > that info to the changelogs, to close the loop. > > Ingo, I'd propose merging both these together rather than routing > one via the x86 tree, OK? sure. > Question is: when? Are we confident enough to merge it into > 2.6.30 now, or should we hold off for 2.6.30.1? I guess we have a > week or more, and if the changes do break something, we can fix > that in 2.6.30.1 ;) With an Acked-by from Hugh i feel pretty confident about it - and as long as it get into -rc8 i think we should do it in .30. Ingo