From: John Hubbard > Sent: 05 December 2018 01:06 > On 12/4/18 9:10 AM, David Laight wrote: > > From: john.hubbard@xxxxxxxxx > >> Sent: 04 December 2018 00:17 > >> > >> Summary: I'd like these two patches to go into the next convenient cycle. > >> I *think* that means 4.21. > >> > >> Details > >> > >> At the Linux Plumbers Conference, we talked about this approach [1], and > >> the primary lingering concern was over performance. Tom Talpey helped me > >> through a much more accurate run of the fio performance test, and now > >> it's looking like an under 1% performance cost, to add and remove pages > >> from the LRU (this is only paid when dealing with get_user_pages) [2]. So > >> we should be fine to start converting call sites. > >> > >> This patchset gets the conversion started. Both patches already had a fair > >> amount of review. > > > > Shouldn't the commit message contain actual details of the change? > > > > Hi David, > > This "patch 0000" is not a commit message, as it never shows up in git log. > Each of the follow-up patches does have details about the changes it makes. I think you should still describe the change - at least in summary. The patch I looked at didn't really... IIRC it still referred to external links. > But maybe you are really asking for more background information, which I > should have added in this cover letter. Here's a start: > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20181110085041.10071-1-jhubbard@xxxxxxxxxx Yes, but links go stale.... > ...and it looks like this small patch series is not going to work out--I'm > going to have to fall back to another RFC spin. So I'll be sure to include > you and everyone on that. Hope that helps. David - Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
