[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <nycvar.YFH.7.76.1902121405440.11598@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 14:09:03 +0100 (CET)
From: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Kevin Easton <kevin@...rana.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@...e.cz>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Daniel Gruss <daniel@...ss.cc>, Josh Snyder <joshs@...flix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm/mincore: provide mapped status when cached status
is not allowed
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019, Michal Hocko wrote:
> I would go with patch 1 for 5.1. Patches 2 still sounds controversial or
> incomplete to me.
Is it because of the disagreement what 'non-blocking' really means, or do
you see something else missing?
Merging patch just patch 1 withouth patch 2 is probably sort of useless
excercise, unfortunately.
Thanks,
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists