Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Message-ID: <1554236175.2828.5.camel@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/hugetlb: Get rid of NODEMASK_ALLOC
From:   Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     mike.kravetz@oracle.com, n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Tue, 02 Apr 2019 22:16:15 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20190402130153.338e59c6cfda1ed3ec882517@linux-foundation.org>
References: <20190402133415.21983-1-osalvador@suse.de>
         <20190402130153.338e59c6cfda1ed3ec882517@linux-foundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 2019-04-02 at 13:01 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> It took a bit of sleuthing to figure out that this patch applies to
> Mike's "hugetlbfs: fix potential over/underflow setting node specific
> nr_hugepages".  Should they be folded together?  I'm thinking not.

Sorry Andrew, I should have mentioned that this patch was based on
Mike's "hugetlb fix potential over/underflow" patch.

Given said that, I would keep the two patches separated, as that one
is a fix, and this one is a cleanup.

> (Also, should "hugetlbfs: fix potential over/underflow setting node
> specific nr_hugepages" have been -stableified?  I also think not, but
> I
> bet it happens anyway).

I am not sure of the consequences in older branches, but if it is not
too much of a hassle, it might be worth? Mike might know better here.

-- 
Oscar Salvador
SUSE L3