Date:   Wed, 5 Jan 2022 14:06:24 -0700
From:   Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>
To:     SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Jesse Barnes <jsbarnes@google.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Michael Larabel <Michael@michaellarabel.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Ying Huang <ying.huang@intel.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        page-reclaim@google.com, x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/9] Multigenerational LRU Framework
Message-ID: <YdYIUAC0gopuy8r/@google.com>
References: <YdV4k1+zEbtzmUkK@google.com>
 <20220105112527.23399-1-sj@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220105112527.23399-1-sj@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jan 05, 2022 at 11:25:27AM +0000, SeongJae Park wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jan 2022 03:53:07 -0700 Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Jan 05, 2022 at 08:55:34AM +0000, SeongJae Park wrote:
> > > Hi Yu,
> > > 
> > > On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 13:22:19 -0700 Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com> wrote:
> [...]
> > > I think similar works are already available out of the box with the latest
> > > mainline tree, though it might be suboptimal in some cases.
> > 
> > Ok, I will sound harsh because I hate it when people challenge facts
> > while having no idea what they are talking about.
> > 
> > Our jobs are help the leadership make best decisions by providing them
> > with facts, not feeding them crap.
> 
> I was using the word "similar", to represent this is only for a rough concept
> level similarity, rather than detailed facts.  But, seems it was not enough,
> sorry.  Anyway, I will not talk more and thus disturb you having the important
> discussion with leaders here, as you are asking.

First of all, I want to apologize.

I detested what I read, and I still don't like "a rough concept level
similarity" sitting next to a factual statement. But as Borislav has
reminded me, my tone did cross the line. I should have had used an
objective approach to express my (very) different views.

I hope that's all water under the bridge now. And I do plan to carry
on with what I should have had done.