On Thu, 17 Oct 2013, Chen Gang wrote:
> If possible, you can help me check all my patches again (at least, it is
> not a bad idea to me). ;-)
>
I think your patches should be acked before being merged into linux-next,
Hugh just had to revert another one that did affect Linus's tree in
1ecfd533f4c5 ("mm/mremap.c: call pud_free() after fail calling
pmd_alloc()"). I had to revert your entire series of mpol_to_str()
changes in -mm. It's getting ridiculous and a waste of other people's
time.
> > Nack to this and nack to the problem patch, which is absolutely pointless
> > and did nothing but introduce this error. readahead() is supposed to
> > return 0, -EINVAL, or -EBADF and your original patch broke it. That's
> > because your original patch was completely pointless to begin with.
> >
>
> Do you mean: in do_readahead(), we need not check the return value of
> force_page_cache_readahead()?
>
I'm saying we should revert
mm-readaheadc-return-the-value-which-force_page_cache_readahead-returns.patch
which violates the API of a syscall. I see that patch has since been
removed from -mm, so I'm happy with the result.
--
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>