> On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > But yes, I agree, the problem is minor. But nevertheless it is bug, > > the longstanding bug with the simple fix. Why should we "hide" this fix > > inside the long series of non-trivial patches which rewrite oom-killer? > > And it is completely orthogonal to other changes. > > > > Again, the question is whether or not the fix is rc material or not, > otherwise there's no difference in the route that it gets upstream: the > patch is duplicated in both series. If you feel that this minor issue > (which has never been reported in at least the last three years and > doesn't have any side effects other than a couple of millisecond delay > until unuse_mm() when the oom killer will kill something else) should be > addressed in 2.6.35-rc2, then that's a conversation to be had with Andrew. Well, we have bugfix-at-first development rule. Why do you refuse our development process? -- 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>