On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 10:30:18AM -0700, David Vernet wrote: > Hi Michal, > > On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 07:04:10PM +0200, Michal Koutný wrote: > > Are the Roman's patches merged anywhere? (I ran into some issues when I > > was rebasing your (David's) series on top of master.) I'd like to put > > all sensible patches in one series or stack on existing branch (if > > there's any). > > Roman's patches are present on master on the linux-mm tree. See > b7dbfd6553d..a131b1ed12c6. > > > For possible v3 of this series, I did: > > - dropped the patch that allows non-zero memory.events:low for a sibling with > > memory.low=0 when mounted with memory_recursiveprot (the case needs more > > discussion), > > Ack, and thanks for keeping us steered in the right direction here. I don't > see this in the patch set you linked, but I agree this commit should be > reverted and the reclaim logic instead fixed. > > > - added few more cleanups, convenience for debugging, > > Are you referring to the FAIL() macro you added? I would love to Ack that, > but unfortunately checkpatch.pl will probably yell at you for having a goto > in that macro, per the point about avoiding macros that affect control flow > [0]. > > I tried to do the same thing when sending out my patch set and had to > revert it before sending it to upstream. > > Thanks, > David > > [0] https://github.com/Werkov/linux/commit/a076339cc4825af2f22f58c1347a572b104b8221 Sorry, I meant to link this: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/coding-style.html#macros-enums-and-rtl
