On Wed, 2013-06-19 at 10:14 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:29:06 +0400 Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Thanks for taking a look at this. > > > > > > > > list_lru_destroy is called by deactivate_lock_super, so we should be fine already. > > > > > > Sorry, I'm a little confused... > > > > > > I didn't see list_lru_destroy() called in deactivate_locked_super(). > > > Maybe I missed something? > > > > Err... the code in my tree reads: > > > > unregister_shrinker(&s->s_shrink); > > list_lru_destroy(&s->s_dentry_lru); > > list_lru_destroy(&s->s_inode_lru); > > put_filesystem(fs); > > put_super(s); > > > > But then I have just checked Andrew's, and it is not there - thank you. > > That is added by "super: targeted memcg reclaim", which is in the part > of the series which we decided to defer. Oh, yes, there it is. Sorry for the noise ... > > > Andrew, should I send a patch for you to fold it ? > > Sure. Perhaps you could check for any other things which should be > brought over from the not-merged-yet patches? > -- 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>