On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 17:33:19 -0500 Dan Streetman <ddstreet@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Here come 2 patches with z3fold fixes for chunks counting and locking. As commit 50a50d2 ("z3fold: don't fail kernel build is z3fold_header is too big") was NAK'ed [1], I would suggest that we removed that one and the next z3fold commit cc1e9c8 ("z3fold: discourage use of pages that weren't compacted") and applied the coming 2 instead.
>
> Instead of adding these onto all the previous ones, could you redo the
> entire z3fold series? I think it'll be simpler to review the series
> all at once and that would remove some of the stuff from previous
> patches that shouldn't be there.
>
> If that's ok with Andrew, of course, but I don't think any of the
> z3fold patches have been pushed to Linus yet.
Sounds good to me. I had a few surprise rejects when merging these
two, which indicates that things might be out of sync.
I presently have:
z3fold-limit-first_num-to-the-actual-range-of-possible-buddy-indexes.patch
z3fold-make-pages_nr-atomic.patch
z3fold-extend-compaction-function.patch
z3fold-use-per-page-spinlock.patch
z3fold-discourage-use-of-pages-that-werent-compacted.patch
z3fold-fix-header-size-related-issues.patch
z3fold-fix-locking-issues.patch
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>