On Wed, 9 Dec 2015 13:58:58 -0500 Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c > > index 6faea81e66d7..73cd572167bb 100644 > > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c > > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c > > @@ -4220,13 +4220,13 @@ mem_cgroup_css_online(struct cgroup_subsys_state *css) > > if (ret) > > return ret; > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_INET > > #ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_LEGACY_KMEM > > ret = tcp_init_cgroup(memcg); > > if (ret) > > return ret; > > #endif > > The calls to tcp_init_cgroup() appear earlier in the series than "mm: > memcontrol: hook up vmpressure to socket pressure". However, they get > moved around a few times so fixing it earlier means respinning the > series. Andrew, it's up to you whether we take the bisectability hit > for !CONFIG_INET && CONFIG_MEMCG (how common is this?) or whether you > want me to resend the series. hm, drat, I was suspecting dependency issues here, but a test build said it was OK. Actually, I was expecting this patch series to depend on the linux-next cgroup2 changes, but that doesn't appear to be the case. *should* this series be staged after the cgroup2 code? Regarding this particular series: yes, I think we can live with a bisection hole for !CONFIG_INET && CONFIG_MEMCG users. But I'm not sure why we're discussing bisection issues, because Arnd's build failure occurs with everything applied? > Sorry about the trouble. I don't have a git tree on kernel.org because > we don't really use git in -mm, but the downside is that we don't get > the benefits of the automatic build testing for all kinds of configs. > I'll try to set up a git tree to expose series to full build coverage > before they hit -mm and -next. This sort of thing happens quite rarely. -- 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>