[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20190402121239.76d64e3c262dcb24ebcee058@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2019 12:12:39 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Tobin C. Harding" <me@...in.cc>
Cc: "Tobin C. Harding" <tobin@...nel.org>, LKP <lkp@...org>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] slob: Only use list functions when safe to do so
On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 06:05:38 +1100 "Tobin C. Harding" <me@...in.cc> wrote:
> > It's regrettable that this fixes
> > slob-respect-list_head-abstraction-layer.patch but doesn't apply to
> > that patch - slob-use-slab_list-instead-of-lru.patch gets in the way.
> > So we end up with a patch series which introduces a bug and later
> > fixes it.
>
> Yes I thought that also. Do you rebase the mm tree? Did you apply this
> right after slob-use-slab_list-instead-of-lru or to the current tip?
After slob-use-slab_list-instead-of-lru.patch
> If
> it is applied to the tip does this effect the ability to later bisect in
> between these two commits (if the need arises for some unrelated reason)?
There is a bisection hole but it is short and the bug is hardish to
hit.
> > I guess we can live with that but if the need comes to respin this
> > series, please do simply fix
> > slob-respect-list_head-abstraction-layer.patch so we get a clean
> > series.
>
> If its not too much work for you to apply the new series I'll do another
> version just to get this right.
I guess that would be best, thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists