On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 16:10:30 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 22:54:03 +0900 (JST) > KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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. > > No, we'll sometime completely replace implementations. There's no hard > rule apart from "whatever makes sense". If wholesale replacement makes > sense as a patch-presentation method then we'll do that. > I agree. IMHO. But this series includes both of bug fixes and new features at random. Then, a small bugfixes, which doens't require refactoring, seems to do that. That's irritating guys (at least me) because it seems that he tries to sneak his own new logic into bugfix and moreover, it makes backport to distro difficult. I'd like to beg him separate them into 2 series as bugfix and something new. Thanks, -Kame -- 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>