On Tue 26-06-18 10:45:11, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2018, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 25-06-18 21:15:03, Kani Toshimitsu wrote:
> > > Lastly, for the code maintenance, I believe this memory allocation keeps
> > > the code much simpler than it would otherwise need to manage a special
> > > page list.
> >
> > Yes, I can see a simplicity as a reasonable argument for a quick fix,
> > which these pile is supposed to be AFAIU. So this might be good to go
> > from that perspective, but I believe that this should be changed in
> > future at least.
>
> So the conclusion is, that we ship this set of patches now to cure the
> existing wreckage, right?
Joerg was suggesting some alternative but I got lost in the discussion
to be honest so I might mis{interpret,remember}.
> Fine with that, but who will take care of reworking it proper? I'm
> concerned that this will just go stale the moment the fixes hit the tree.
Yeah, this is why I usually try to push back hard because "will be fixed
later" is similar to say "documentation will come later" etc...
A big fat TODO would be appropriate so it won't get forgotten at least.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
