On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 01:19:18AM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: > > > > Last time I complained about some of the shrinker implementations but > > I'm not expecting them to be fixed in this series. However I still have > > questions about where -1 should be returned that I don't think were > > addressed so I'll repeat them. > > > > Note that the series try to keep the same behavior as we had before. > (modulo mistakes, spotting them are mostly welcome) > > So if we are changing any of this, maybe better done in a separate patch? > Ok, that's fair enough and a separate patch does make sense. I thought it was an oversight when the -1 return value was documented but not all callers were updated even though it looked appropriate. Slap a comment above the highlighted places suggesting that a return value of -1 be used instead so it does not get lost maybe? Whether you do that or not Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx> -- Mel Gorman 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>