> Why? > > If it's because the patch is too big, I've explained a few times that > functionally you can't break it apart into anything meaningful. I do not > believe it is better to break functional changes into smaller patches that > simply change function signatures to pass additional arguments that are > unused in the first patch, for example. > > If it's because it adds /proc/pid/oom_score_adj in the same patch, that's > allowed since otherwise it would be useless with the old heuristic. In > other words, you cannot apply oom_score_adj's meaning to the bitshift in > any sane way. > > I'll suggest what I have multiple times: the easiest way to review the > functional change here is to merge the patch into your own tree and then > review oom_badness(). I agree that the way the diff comes out it is a > little difficult to read just from the patch form, so merging it and > reviewing the actual heuristic function is the easiest way. I've already explained the reason. 1) all-of-rewrite patches are always unacceptable. that's prevent our code maintainance. 2) no justification patches are also unacceptable. you need to write more proper patch descriptaion at least. We don't need pointless suggestion. you only need to fix the patch. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>