From: Oliver Neukum ([email protected]) Sent: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 12:24:07 +0200
> Am Dienstag, den 23.05.2017, 20:06 +0100 schrieb Jim Baxter:
>> From: David S. Miller ([email protected])
>> Sent: Tue, 23 May 2017 11:26:25 -0400
>>>
>>> From: Oliver Neukum <[email protected]>
>>> Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 10:42:48 +0200
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We could use a counter. After the first failure, do it once, after the
>>>> second twice and so on. And reset the counter as a higher order
>>>> allocation works. (just bound it somewhere)
>>>
>>> So an exponential backoff, that might work.
>>>
>>
>> As an idea I have created this patch as an addition to the original patch
>> in this series.
>>
>> Would this be acceptable?
>>
>> At the moment I have capped the value at 10, does anyone think it needs to
>> be much higher then that?
>
> Hi,
>
> I am working through mail backlog. If I may ask, has this patch proposal
> had a result or does something need to be done still?
>
> Regards
> Oliver
>
Hi,
I have not received any response to my additional patch yet.
Do you think I should submit it as a second RFC patchset?
Regards,
Jim