On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Olivér Pintér wrote: > Q: It's needed auch to 2.6.22-stable?
I guess so: though SLUB wasn't on by default in 2.6.22; and it being only a slow leak rather than a corruption, I was less inclined to agitate about it for releases further back. But your question makes me realize I never even looked at 2.6.23 or 2.6.22 hereabouts, just assumed they were the same; let alone patch or build or test them. The patches reject as such because quite a lot has changed around (there was no struct kmem_cache_cpu in either). A hurried look suggests that the leakage problem was there in both, but let's wait to hear Christoph's expert opinion. Hugh
