Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759590AbcLRIPN (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Dec 2016 03:15:13 -0500 Received: from mail-ua0-f193.google.com ([209.85.217.193]:33943 "EHLO mail-ua0-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753594AbcLRIPL (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Dec 2016 03:15:11 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20161129143916.f24c141c1a264bad1220031e@linux-foundation.org> References: <20161126201534.5d5e338f678b478e7a7b8dc3@gmail.com> <20161129143916.f24c141c1a264bad1220031e@linux-foundation.org> From: Vitaly Wool Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2016 09:15:09 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] z3fold fixes To: Andrew Morton Cc: Dan Streetman , Linux-MM , linux-kernel , Arnd Bergmann , Dan Carpenter Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mail.home.local id uBI8FIKJ015049 Content-Length: 2131 Lines: 44 On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 11:39 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 17:33:19 -0500 Dan Streetman wrote: > >> On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Vitaly Wool wrote: >> > Here come 2 patches with z3fold fixes for chunks counting and locking. As commit 50a50d2 ("z3fold: don't fail kernel build is z3fold_header is too big") was NAK'ed [1], I would suggest that we removed that one and the next z3fold commit cc1e9c8 ("z3fold: discourage use of pages that weren't compacted") and applied the coming 2 instead. >> >> Instead of adding these onto all the previous ones, could you redo the >> entire z3fold series? I think it'll be simpler to review the series >> all at once and that would remove some of the stuff from previous >> patches that shouldn't be there. >> >> If that's ok with Andrew, of course, but I don't think any of the >> z3fold patches have been pushed to Linus yet. > > Sounds good to me. I had a few surprise rejects when merging these > two, which indicates that things might be out of sync. > > I presently have: > > z3fold-limit-first_num-to-the-actual-range-of-possible-buddy-indexes.patch > z3fold-make-pages_nr-atomic.patch > z3fold-extend-compaction-function.patch > z3fold-use-per-page-spinlock.patch > z3fold-discourage-use-of-pages-that-werent-compacted.patch > z3fold-fix-header-size-related-issues.patch > z3fold-fix-locking-issues.patch My initial suggestion was to have it the following way: z3fold-limit-first_num-to-the-actual-range-of-possible-buddy-indexes.patch z3fold-make-pages_nr-atomic.patch z3fold-extend-compaction-function.patch z3fold-use-per-page-spinlock.patch z3fold-fix-header-size-related-issues.patch z3fold-fix-locking-issues.patch I would prefer to keep the fix-XXX patches separate since e. g. z3fold-fix-header-size-related-issues.patch concerns also the problems that have been in the code for a while now. I am ok with folding these into the relevant main patches but once again, given that some fixes are related to the code that is already merged, I don't see why it would be better. ~vitaly