Re: [PATCH] mm, memcg: fix wrong mem cgroup protection

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Yafang Shao writes:
If the author can't understand deeply in the code worte by
himself/herself, I think the author should do more test on his/her
patches.
Regarding the issue in this case, my understanding is you know the
benefit of proportional reclaim, but I'm wondering that do you know
the loss if the proportional is not correct ?
I don't mean to affend you, while I just try to explain how the
community should cooperate.

I'm pretty sure that since multiple people on mm list have already expressed confusion at this patch, this isn't a question of testing, but of lack of clarity in usage :-)

Promoting "testing" as a panacea for this issue misses a significant part of the real problem: that the intended semantics and room for allowed races is currently unclear, which is why there is a general sense of confusion around your proposed patch and what it solves. If more testing would help, then the benefit of your patch should be patently obvious -- but it isn't.



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Development Newbies]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux