On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 19:06:57 +0900 Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 2011-03-22 (í), 13:56 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki: > > On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:04:39 +0900 > > Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > 2011-03-22 (í), 08:59 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki: > > > > On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 21:54:15 +0900 > > > > Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > What is the benefit of this patch ? > > > > > > > > -Kame > > > > > > > > > > Oh, I just thought generally it'd better call such a (potentially) > > > costly function outside of locks and it could reduce few of theoretical > > > contentions between swapons and/or offs. If it doesn't help any > > > realistic cases I don't mind discarding it. > > > > > > > My point is, please write patch description which shows for what this patc is. > > All cleanup are okay to me if it reasonable. But without patch description as > > "this is just a cleanup, no functional change, and the reason is...." > > we cannot maintain patches. > > > > Thanks, > > -Kame > > > > OK, I will do that in the future. Anyway, do you want me to resend the > patch with new description? > please. I'll never ack a patch without description. Thanks, -Kame _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
