Hi Dan, On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 09:22:59 -0700 (PDT) Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > OK, I see "Already up-to-date" in merge.log. I'll assume > that the new frontswap commits will lag a day. (Thanks, > Konrad, for helping me find this info and pointing out the > probable lag.) > > (A thought... perhaps the merge.log generation script should > do a "date" at the beginning and end, so one knows if one > has just missed your merge window?) Yeah, well I am out of sync (timezone-wise) with most people, so good thought. Though I actually fetch all the trees before I starte merging them, but it will give people some idea. > > The tree is still called "cleancache" in linux-next. Should I change > > that to something more generic? > > Yes please. A good short name would be "tmem", but if you want > something longer and more descriptive maybe, "transcendent_memory". > I expect in the future that this might be the path for, for > example, tmem-related code that is promoted from drivers/staging. > E.g., the generic tmem.c code in drivers/staging/zcache could > probably end up in lib at some point if/when there are multiple users. OK, I have renamed it to tmem (much easier to type :-)). -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
Attachment:
pgpNu4K2WUDbi.pgp
Description: PGP signature
