Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262442AbUKQUX4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Nov 2004 15:23:56 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262378AbUKQUWQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Nov 2004 15:22:16 -0500 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:1254 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262442AbUKQUVp (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Nov 2004 15:21:45 -0500 Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 12:21:23 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Hugh Dickins Cc: ak@suse.de, 76306.1226@compuserve.com, andrea@novell.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Dropped patch: mm/mempolicy.c:sp_lookup() Message-Id: <20041117122123.6162fa70.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20041117111336.608409ef.akpm@osdl.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.7 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1717 Lines: 41 Hugh Dickins wrote: > > On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Andi Kleen wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 10:54:09PM -0500, Chuck Ebbert wrote: > > > > On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 at 02:00:20 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 11:15:51PM -0500, Chuck Ebbert wrote: > > > > > > Andrea posted this one-liner a while ago as part of a larger patch. He said > > > > > > it fixed return of the wrong policy in some conditions. Was this a valid fix? > > > > > > > > > > Yes it was. > > > > > > > > At least it wasn't dropped -- it's in -mm as part of > > > > fix-for-mpol-mm-corruption-on-tmpfs, though it's unrelated to tmpfs. > > > > (That patch contains three separate changes...) > > > > > > > > Should just this part, which changes '<' to '<=', be pushed upstream? > > > > > > Yes. I'm sure Andrea will take care of that himself. > > > > That fix is contained within fix-for-mpol-mm-corruption-on-tmpfs.patch > > anyway, isn't it? > > Yes; and Chuck is right that it's three patches not one. Always a source of hassles, that. > I think at the least you should split it by file into mm/shmem.c > and mm/mempolicy.c parts, they're entirely independent. > > I've seen Andi's ack on the '<=' fix, > I've not seen his ack on the mempolicy optimizations. Sigh. OK, I'll split the patch into three and will feed the `<=' fix and the symlink fix into 2.6.10. The mempolicy optimisation can await 2.6.11. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/