On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 02:59:54PM -0700, Ying Han wrote: >> This patch reverts all the existing softlimit reclaim implementations. > > This ordering makes it quite hard to revert individual patches after > merging in case they are faulty, because we end up with a tree state > that has no soft limit implementation at all, or a newly broken one. > > Could you reorder the series such that each patch leaves the tree in a > sane state? > > I.e. also don't introduce an endless loop in the page allocator > through one patch and fix it later in another one ;) Noone will be > able to remember these cross-dependencies in a couple of weeks. Make sense to me. I will try to make the ordering better for the next post :) --Ying > Thanks! -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>