[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100602223612.F52D.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 22:54:03 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] oom: select_bad_process: check PF_KTHREAD instead of !mm to skip kthreads
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > But yes, I agree, the problem is minor. But nevertheless it is bug,
> > the longstanding bug with the simple fix. Why should we "hide" this fix
> > inside the long series of non-trivial patches which rewrite oom-killer?
> > And it is completely orthogonal to other changes.
> >
>
> Again, the question is whether or not the fix is rc material or not,
> otherwise there's no difference in the route that it gets upstream: the
> patch is duplicated in both series. If you feel that this minor issue
> (which has never been reported in at least the last three years and
> doesn't have any side effects other than a couple of millisecond delay
> until unuse_mm() when the oom killer will kill something else) should be
> addressed in 2.6.35-rc2, then that's a conversation to be had with Andrew.
Well, we have bugfix-at-first development rule. Why do you refuse our
development process?
--
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