Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Fix HugeTLB subpool used_hpages tracking

[Ackerley Tng]

Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>
> [...snip...]
>

Missed out replying to this!

> So if downstream people (-stable maintainers, others) follow our
> recommendations, some kernels will get two of these patches, other
> kernel versions will get three and some lucky kernels might get all
> four.  Are you confident that the patches can be split apart in this
> fashion and still produce a good result?

Would it be better to add Fixes tags such that if one patch is applied,
all 4 are applied? How do I set that up?

Patch 1 is kind of a fundamental fix in subpool accounting, which allows
other fixes/simplifications in different places.

> After all, we're sending
> downstream some patch combinations which we didn't test.
>

I think patches 2, 3, 4 would kind of depend on 1. Without 1, the others
would probably do the wrong thing.

Or would it be better to just squash all into 1 patch?

Each patch does fix a different part, and also I didn't want too big a
patch, which would make it hard to review.

In terms of bisecting, even with patch 1, the bugs fixed in patches 2, 3
and 4 would still be buggy.

>
> [...snip...]
>