On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 11:37:03 +0400 Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 06/06/2013 11:18 AM, Andrew Morton wrote: > > The shrinker stuff seems sensible and straightforward and I expect we > > can proceed with that at the normal pace. The memcg changes struck me > > as being hairy as hell and I'd really like to see the other memcg > > people go through it carefully. > > > > Of course, "new series" doesn't give you an easily accessible tree to > > target. I could drop it all again to give you a clean shot at > > tomorrow's -next? > If you just keep them on top (not really sure how hard it is for you), I > can just remove them all and apply a new series on top. I could do that but then anyone else who wants to test the code has to do the same thing. Dropping them out of -next does seem the clean approach. We still need to work out what to do with memcg-debugging-facility-to-access-dangling-memcgs.patch btw. See other email. -- 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>