On Fri 26-04-13 11:37:41, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hey, > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 01:51:20PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > Maybe I should have been more explicit about this but _yes I do agree_ > > that a separate limit would work as well. I just do not want to > > Heh, the point was more about what we shouldn't be doing, but, yeah, > it's good that we at least agree on something. :) > > > Anyway, I will think about cons and pros of the new limit. I think we > > shouldn't block the first 3 patches in the series which keep the current > > semantic and just change the internals to do the same thing. Do you > > agree? > > As the merge window is coming right up, if it isn't something super > urgent, can we please hold it off until after the merge window? It > would be really great if we can pin down the semantics of the knob > before doing anything. I think that merging it into 3.10 would be too ambitious but I think this core code cleanup makes sense for future discussions so I would like to post it for -mm tree at least. The sooner it will be the better IMHO. > Please. I'll think / study more about it in the coming weeks. > > Thanks. > > -- > tejun -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>