On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 1:06 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 11:05:41 -0800 Mina Almasry <almasrymina@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 3:19 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 13:31:20 -0800 Mina Almasry <almasrymina@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > These counters will track hugetlb reservations rather than hugetlb > > > > memory faulted in. This patch only adds the counter, following patches > > > > add the charging and uncharging of the counter. > > > > > > We're still pretty thin on review here, but as it's v12 and Mike > > > appears to be signed up to look at this work, I'll add them to -next to > > > help move things forward. > > > > > > > Hi Andrew, > > > > Since the patches were merged into -next there have been build fixes > > and test fixes and some review comments. Would you like me to submit > > *new* patches to address these, or would you like me to squash the > > fixes into my existing patch series and submit another iteration of > > the patch series? > > What you did worked OK ;) > > Please check the end result next time I release a kernel. Thanks Andrew! Things definitely moved along after the patchseries got into -next :D By my count I think all my patches outside of the tests patch have been acked or reviewed. When you have a chance I have a couple of questions: 1. For the non-tests patch, anything pending on those preventing eventual submission to linus's tree? 2. For the tests patch, I only have a Tested-by from Sandipan. Is that good enough? If the worst comes to worst and I don't get a review on that patch I would rather (if possible) that 'tests' patch can be dropped while I nag folks for a review, rather than block submission of the entire patch series. I ask because it's been out for review for some time and it's the one I got least discussion on so I'm not sure I'll have a review by the time it's needed. Thanks again!
