On Thu, 6 Mar 2014, Tejun Heo wrote: > > I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion: it's necessary because any > > process handling the oom condition will need memory to do anything useful. > > How else would a process that is handling a system oom condition, for > > example, be able to obtain a list of processes, check memory usage, issue > > a kill, do any logging, collect heap or smaps samples, or signal processes > > to throttle incoming requests without having access to memory itself? The > > system is oom. > > We're now just re-starting the whole discussion with all context lost. > How is this a good idea? We talked about all this previously. If you > have something to add, add there *please* so that other people can > track it too. > I'm referring to system oom handling as an example above, in case you missed my earlier email a few minutes ago: the previous patchset did not include support for system oom handling. Nothing that I wrote above was possible with the first patchset. This is the complete support. > That's completely fine but if that's your intention please at least > prefix the patchset with RFC and explicitly state that no consensus > has been reached (well, it was more like negative consensus from what > I remember) in the description so that it can't be picked up > accidentally. > This patchset provides a solution to a real-world problem that is not solved with any other patchset. I expect it to be reviewed as any other patchset, it's not an "RFC" from my perspective: it's a proposal for inclusion. Don't worry, Andrew is not going to apply anything accidentally. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
