Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed 26-07-17 14:33:57, Michal Hocko wrote: >> On Wed 26-07-17 13:11:46, Punit Agrawal wrote: > [...] >> > I've been running tests from mce-test suite and libhugetlbfs for similar >> > changes we did on arm64. There could be assumptions that were not >> > exercised but I'm not sure how to check for all the possible usages. >> > >> > Do you have any other suggestions that can help improve confidence in >> > the patch? >> >> Unfortunatelly I don't. I just know there were many subtle assumptions >> all over the place so I am rather careful to not touch the code unless >> really necessary. >> >> That being said, I am not opposing your patch. > > Let me be more specific. I am not opposing your patch but we should > definitely need more reviewers to have a look. I am not seeing any > immediate problems with it but I do not see a large improvements either > (slightly less nightmare doesn't make me sleep all that well ;)). So I > will leave the decisions to others. I hear you - I'd definitely appreciate more eyes on the code change and description. Thanks for taking a look. -- 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>
