Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] Refactor part of the oom report in dump_header

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] Refactor part of the oom report in dump_header
From: 禹舟键 <ufo19890607@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 16:18:34 +0800
Cc: akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx, kirill.shutemov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, aarcange@xxxxxxxxxx, penguin-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, guro@xxxxxx, yang.s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Wind Yu <yuzhoujian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20180604065238.GE19202@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <1527940734-35161-1-git-send-email-ufo19890607@gmail.com> <1527940734-35161-2-git-send-email-ufo19890607@gmail.com> <20180604065238.GE19202@dhcp22.suse.cz>

Hi Tetsuo
I know what you mean. Actully I refer to the code for kernel version:
3.10.0-514.  I think I can just use an array of type char, rather than
static char. Is it right?

Thanks

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] Refactor part of the oom report in dump_header
  - From: 禹舟键

References:
- [PATCH v7 1/2] Add an array of const char and enum oom_constraint in memcontrol.h
  - From: ufo19890607
- [PATCH v7 2/2] Refactor part of the oom report in dump_header
  - From: ufo19890607
- Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] Refactor part of the oom report in dump_header
  - From: Michal Hocko

Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] mm,oom: Don't call schedule_timeout_killable() with oom_lock held.
Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] kmemleak: don't use __GFP_NOFAIL
Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] Refactor part of the oom report in dump_header
Next by thread: Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] Refactor part of the oom report in dump_header
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Linux ARM Kernel] [Linux ARM] [Linux Omap] [Fedora ARM] [IETF Annouce] [Bugtraq] [Linux OMAP] [Linux MIPS] [eCos] [Asterisk Internet PBX] [Linux API]

Powered by Linux