[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151126073954.GC685@swordfish>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 16:39:54 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kyeongdon Kim <kyeongdon.kim@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] zram: pass gfp from zcomp frontend to backend
[sorry, ended up screwing up Message-Id in In-Reply-To! resending]
------------------------------------------------------------------
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org> wrote:
[..]
> > Aha, I see. I don't mind to send it to -stable (with __GFP_HIGHMEM fix
> > up).
Hello Minchan,
Sorry for not replying sooner.
> Sure.
> Can I add your acked-by for [2/3] and [3/3]?
>
> And I will keep order and add stable mark in [2/3].
yes.
a) + __GFP_HIGHMEM in 2/3 and 3/3
b) can I add two small nitpicks from my side?
#1 s/could/can/ ?
- * This function could be called in swapout/fs write path
- * so we couldn't use GFP_FS|IO. And it assumes we already
+ "This function can be called in swapout/fs write path so we can't use"
#2 can you please add spaces around GFP flags? it's just a bit easier to read.
GFP_NOIO | __GFP_HIGHMEM | __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOWARN | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC
vs
GFP_NOIO|__GFP_HIGHMEM|__GFP_NORETRY|__GFP_NOWARN|__GFP_NOMEMALLOC
c) Acked-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Thank you.
-ss
--
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