On 28.10.2021 01:36, Andrew Morton wrote:

On Mon, 25 Oct 2021 11:36:41 +0200 Michal Hocko [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

My view on stable backport is similar to the previous patch. If we want
to have it there then let's wait for some time to see whether there are
any fallouts as this patch depends on the PF_OOM change.

It's strange that [1/3] doesn't have cc:stable, but [2/3] and [3/3] do
not.  What is the thinking here?

My fault, I missed it.
All 3 patches should be backported,
I did it already to stables kernels since 4.4 and I'm ready to submit it in demand.

I expect we'd be OK with merging these into 5.16-rc1.  This still gives
another couple of months in -rc to shake out any problems.  But I
suspect the -stable maintainers will merge and release the patches
before they are released in 5.16.

In which case an alternative would be not to mark these patches
cc:stable and to somehow remember to ask the -stable maintainers to
merge them after 5.16 has been on the streets for a suitable period.

Greg, thoughts?

If you wish I can remind Greg in a month or even after 5.17 release.

Thank you,
	Vasily Averin