lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 13:32:14 +0900 From: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org> To: Seth Jennings <sjenning@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>, Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com>, Robert Jennings <rcj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Jenifer Hopper <jhopper@...ibm.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>, Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 0/7] zswap: compressed swap caching On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 04:49:04PM -0600, Seth Jennings wrote: > On 01/29/2013 04:14 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Tue, 2013-01-29 at 15:40 -0600, Seth Jennings wrote: > >> The code required for the flushing is in a separate patch now > >> as requested. > > > > What tree does this apply to? > > Both -next and linus fail to compile. > > Link to build instruction in the cover letter: > > >> NOTE: To build, read this: > >> http://lkml.org/lkml/2013/1/28/586 > > The complexity is due to a conflict with a zsmalloc patch in Greg's > staging tree that has yet to make its way upstream. > > Sorry for the inconvenience. Seth, Please don't ignore previous review if you didn't convince reviewer. I don't want to consume time with arguing trivial things. Copy and Paste from previous discussion from zsmalloc pathset > > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:46:14AM -0600, Seth Jennings wrote: > > >> These patches are the first 4 patches of the zswap patchset I > > >> sent out previously. Some recent commits to zsmalloc and > > >> zcache in staging-next forced a rebase. While I was at it, Nitin > > >> (zsmalloc maintainer) requested I break these 4 patches out from > > >> the zswap patchset, since they stand on their own. > > > > > > [2/4] and [4/4] is okay to merge current zsmalloc in staging but > > > [1/4] and [3/4] is dependent on zswap so it should be part of > > > zswap patchset. > > > > Just to clarify, patches 1 and 3 are _not_ dependent on zswap. They > > just introduce changes that are only needed by zswap. > > I don't think so. If zswap might be not merged, we don't need [1, 3] > at the moment. You could argue that [1, 3] make zsmalloc more flexible > and I agree. BUT I want it when we have needs. It would be not too late. > So [1,3] should be part of zswap patchset. -- Kind regards, Minchan Kim -- 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