On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > I've already explained the reason. 1) all-of-rewrite patches are > always unacceptable. that's prevent our code maintainance. How else would you propose to completely change a heuristic?? By doing it in steps where the intermediate changes make an absolute mess of it first and then slowly work toward the end result? This is a complete rewrite of the badness() heuristic, it introduces a new userspace interface, oom_score_adj, which it heavily relies upon (otherwise it'd be impossible to disable oom killing completely for certain tasks, for example), so naturally that needs to be included. I've followed your suggestion of splitting out the forkbomb detector into the next patch, which you don't even have any feedback for either other than "nack", so what else do you want from me?? Please follow my suggestion that I've repeatedly made: merge the patch locally and check out the new oom_badness() function and see if there's anything you're concerned with. In other words, please actually review the implementation and design. > 2) no justification > patches are also unacceptable. you need to write more proper patch descriptaion > at least. > What needs to be included in the patch description that isn't already? I think it's intention and implementation is clearly spelled out. > We don't need pointless suggestion. you only need to fix the patch. > It's a review tip to make it easier to read the patch since the complete rewrite of oom_badness() is difficult to read in patch form because of the breaks. -- 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>