[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20240218134534.15a7b1cc7f297a2ecf4b8bc9@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2024 13:45:34 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
Cc: Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>, hannes@...xchg.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
nphamcs@...il.com, zhouchengming@...edance.com, senozhatsky@...omium.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Barry Song <v-songbaohua@...o.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: zswap: increase reject_compress_poor but not
reject_compress_fail if compression returns ENOSPC
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 15:14:34 -0800 Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > The patch LGTM, but it won't apply on top of mm-unstable given the
> > > amount of zswap refactoring there. I would rebase on top of mm-unstable
> > > if I were you (and if you did, add mm-unstable in the subject prefix).
> >
> > This patch has a "fixes" tag, so I assume it should be also in 6.8?
>
> Hmm that's up to Andrew. This fixes debug counters so it's not
> critical. On the other hand, it will conflict with the cleanup series
> in his tree and he'll have to rebase and fix the conflicts (which
> aren't a lot, but could still be annoying). Personally I think this
> can wait till v6.9, but if Andrew doesn't have a problem taking it for
> v6.8 that's fine too.
Yes, there are some pretty extensive repairs needed after this change.
I'd prefer not to because lazy, and there are risks involved.
So against mm-unstable would be preferred please.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists