On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 11:31:17 -0700 Nhat Pham <nphamcs@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > There are parts of the code that I would feel more comfortable if > > someone took a look at (which I mentioned in individual patches). So > > unless this happens in the next few days I wouldn't say so. > > > > I'm not super familiar with the other series. How big is the dependency? > Looks like it's just a small part in the swapcache code right? > > If this is the case, I feel like the best course of action is to rebase > the mempolicy patch series on top of mm-unstable, and resolve > this merge conflict. OK, thanks. Hugh, do you have time to look at rebasing on the mm-stable which I pushed out 15 minutes ago? > I will then send out v4 of the zswap shrinker, > rebased on top of the mempolicy patch series. > > If this is not the case, one thing we can do is: > > a) Fix bugs (there's one kernel test robot it seems) > b) Fix user-visible details (writeback counter for e.g) > > and just merge the series for now. FWIW, this is an optional > feature and disabled by default. So performance optimization > and aesthetics change (list_lru_add() renaming etc.) can wait. > > We can push out v4 by the end of today and early tomorrow > if all goes well. Then everyone can review and comment on it. >
