On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 05:47:13PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: > On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 10:17:54AM +0200, Vitaly Wool wrote: > > <snip> > > > I already said questions, opinion and concerns but anything is not clear > > > until now. Only clear thing I could hear is just "compaction stats are > > > better" which is not enough for me. Sorry. > > > > > > 1) https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/15/33 > > > 2) https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/21/2 > > > > Could you please stop perverting the facts, I did answer to that: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/21/753. > > > > Apart from that, an opinion is not necessarily something I would > > answer. Concerns about zsmalloc are not in the scope of this patch's > > discussion. If you have any concerns regarding this particular patch, > > please let us know. > > Yes, I don't want to interrupt zbud thing which is Seth should maintain > and I respect his decision but the reason I nacked is you said this patch > aims for supporing zbud into zsmalloc for determinism. zram Sorry for the typo. -- 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>