[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200901052328.26630.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 23:28:26 +1100
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.29 -mm merge plans
On Monday 05 January 2009 19:43:00 Andrew Morton wrote:
> The individual patches are mostly at
> http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/mmotm/broken-out/
>
>
> mm-remove-the-might_sleep-from-lock_page.patch
>
> Need to think about this.
Removing this reduces a lot of might_sleep coverage scope. Page
lock isn't contended in a lot of cases. Why would you drop a
good debugging feature?
> mm-direct-io-starvation-improvement.patch
> fs-remove-wb_sync_hold.patch
> fs-sync_sb_inodes-fix.patch
> fs-sys_sync-fix.patch
> radix-tree-gang-set-if-tagged-operation.patch
This one is unneeded because you didn't take the fsync livelock avoidance
patch that makes use of the new function.
> make-sure-nobodys-leaking-resources.patch
> releasing-resources-with-children.patch
Any reason why not to add these upstream?
> nr_blockdev_pages-in_interrupt-warning.patch
Lockdep should catch this, I guess.
> put_bh-debug.patch
This could just be implemented with a VM_BUG_ON (or FS_BUG_ON) like the
pagecache refcounting. Wouldn't be a bad idea.
> add-a-refcount-check-in-dput.patch
Again, why not an FS_BUG_ON for things like this too?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists