[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <512d72e0-7b1d-4424-7cc4-7b963b9cbc7f@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 20:37:46 +0800
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>,
Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>,
Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Arun KS <arunks@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] mm/lru: add per lruvec lock for memcg
在 2019/11/18 下午8:08, Matthew Wilcox 写道:
>>> Merge this patch with actual usage. No need to have a separate patch.
>> Thanks for comment, Shakeel!
>>
>> Yes, but considering the 3rd, huge and un-splitable patch of actully replacing, I'd rather to pull sth out from
>> it. Ty to make patches a bit more readable, Do you think so?
> This method of splitting the patches doesn't help with the reviewability of
> the patch series.
Hi Matthew,
Thanks for comments!
I will fold them into the 3rd patch as you are all insist on this. :)
Thanks
Alex
Powered by blists - more mailing lists