On Mon 06-02-17 07:24:00, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 03:34:50PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > This part is not needed for the patch, strictly speaking but I wanted to > > make the code more future proof. > > Understood. I took an extra bit myself for marking the radix tree as > being used for an IDR (so the radix tree now uses 4 bits). I see you > already split out the address space GFP mask from the other flags :-) > I would prefer not to do that with the radix tree, but I understand > your desire for more GFP bits. I'm not entirely sure that an implicit > gfpmask makes a lot of sense for the radix tree, but it'd be a big effort > to change all the callers. Anyway, I'm going to update your line here > for my current tree and add the build bug so we'll know if we ever hit > any problems. OK, do I get it right that the patch can stay as is and go to Andrew? I would really like to not rebase the patch again for something that is not merged yet. I really hope for getting this merged finally... -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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>
