On Sun 12-01-14 14:10:49, David Rientjes wrote: > On Fri, 10 Jan 2014, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > > > > It was acked-by Michal. > > > > Michal acked it before we had most of the discussions and now he is > > proposing an alternate version of yours, a patch that you are even > > discussing with him concurrently in another thread. To claim he is > > still backing your patch because of that initial ack is disingenuous. > > > > His patch depends on mine, Johannes. Does it? Are we talking about the same patch here? https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/12/12/174 Which depends on yours only to revert your part. I plan to repost it but that still doesn't mean it will get merged because Johannes still has some argumnets against. I would like to start the discussion again because now we are so deep in circles that it is hard to come up with a reasonable outcome. It is still hard to e.g. agree on an actual fix for a real problem https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/12/12/129. While notification might be an issue as well it is more of a corner case than a regular one. So let's try to move on, agree on the "oom vs. PF_EXITING) first and lay out discussion for the notification in a new threa. Shall we? -- Michal Hocko 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>