On 06/06/2013 11:47 AM, Andrew Morton wrote: > 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. > Ok. I am using half of that as official infrastructure now. I will reply to your comments when I reach that. -- 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>