On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 03:34:33PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 8 May 2014 15:19:37 +0900 Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > I also think that VM_DEBUG overhead isn't problem because of same > > > reason from Vlastimil. > > > > Guys, please read this. > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/17/591 > > > > If you guys really want it, we could separate it with > > CONFIG_DEBUG_CMA or CONFIG_DEBUG_RESERVE like stuff. > > Otherwise, just remain in mmotm. > > Wise words, those. > > Yes, these checks are in a pretty hot path. I'm inclined to make the > patch -mm (and -next) only. > > Unless there's a really good reason, such as "nobody who uses CMA is > likely to be testing -next", which sounds likely :( Hello, Now, I think that dropping this patch is better if we can only use it on MIGRATE_CMA case. Later, if I feel that this case should be checked, I will resend the patch with appropriate argument. Thanks. -- 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>