From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail202.messagelabs.com (mail202.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.227]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E240760021B for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 20:11:32 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4B1EF8AB.6010806@ah.jp.nec.com> Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 10:08:59 +0900 From: Naoya Horiguchi Reply-To: n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] mm hugetlb x86: add hugepage support to pagemap References: <4B1CB5D6.9080007@ah.jp.nec.com> <20091208143928.f3aa0ad2.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20091208143928.f3aa0ad2.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Andrew Morton Cc: LKML , linux-mm , hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk, ak@linux.intel.com, Wu Fengguang List-ID: > I kind of dislike the practice of putting all the changelog in patch > [0/n] and then leaving the patches themselves practically > unchangelogged. Because Sorry, I agree. > > a) Someone (ie: me) needs to go and shuffle all the text around so > that the information gets itself into the git record. We don't add > changelog-only commits to git! > > b) Someone (ie: me) might decide to backport a subset of the patches > into -stable. Now someone (ie: me) needs to carve up the changelogs > so that the pieces which go into -stable still make standalone sense. > > I'm not sure that I did this particularly well in this case. Oh well. > > > Please confirm that > mm-hugetlb-fix-hugepage-memory-leak-in-walk_page_range.patch is > suitable for a -stable backport without inclusion of > mm-hugetlb-add-hugepage-support-to-pagemap.patch. I think it is. > I think that's OK. Thanks, Naoya Horiguchi -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org