On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, Nick Piggin wrote: > Well there are a large number of patches with no objections, some of > which are bug-fixes which may need to be backported to earlier kernels. > It would be nice if the patchset would be rearranged so all these can > be merged soon (I don't want the situation where a couple of patches > hold up your entire patchset again). > I've written fixes in this patchset and have merged Oleg's work into it, but I would stress that none of these are really bugfixes that fix an unstable condition: killing a task outside of current's cpuset even though it was needless isn't a bugfix, recalling the oom killer once a kthread has called unuse_mm() isn't a bugfix, etc. So while they definitely are fixes that we'd like to see upstream at some point, hence they were merged here as well, their impact is not as severe as it may have been described outside of this thread. I definitely don't want that situation where a couple of patches hold it up either, I'm waiting for something to work on. > When you are reduced to a few patches changing major functionality, it > could be eaiser to get those reviewed and merged on their own. > What patches specifically do you think are 2.6.35-rc2 material? Otherwise, in my opinion, holding up this entire thing from being merged doesn't make a lot of sense based on order of patches. > Well the merge window is closed and even if it wasn't the patches would > be better to sit in -mm for a bit. So I don't think there is a big rush > now, let's just get it right so everything is lined up to get into the > next merge window. > They already sat in -mm for six weeks, so I had stopped my work thinking they already had a path upstream then were abruptly removed with the only alternative left to me in being to fold incremental fixes into one another and repost. There have been no changes to what was sitting in -mm for six weeks other than dropping the consolidation of sysctls, the unifying of the panic_on_oom semantics for pagefault ooms, and refactoring of the patchset. I'm left in the position where people want certain patches merged first even though they won't say it's rc material, they want to me to base my patchset off what they speculatively believe Andrew will eventually merge in -mm in the first place from others, and they refuse to review both the implementation and design of the new heursitic. It compounds my work every day with absolutely no forward progress being made and we've stalled out on all this work because nobody is actually getting involved in reviewing the patchset for Andrew. I honestly don't understand why this entire patchset cannot be merged right now with a target of 2.6.36. If you disagree, please show me the patches that you believe are rc material and the problems that they fix that are either regressions from current code or have a severe enough impact to warrant that type of consideration. Thanks. -- 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>