Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 09:44:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 09:44:12 -0400 Received: from [195.223.140.120] ([195.223.140.120]:56370 "EHLO penguin.e-mind.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 09:44:11 -0400 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 15:44:18 +0200 From: Andrea Arcangeli To: William Lee Irwin III , Linus Torvalds , Rik van Riel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] for_each_zone / for_each_pgdat Message-ID: <20020416154418.B25328@dualathlon.random> In-Reply-To:

<20020415232058.GO21206@holomorphy.com> <20020416024458.H26561@dualathlon.random> <20020416013016.GA23513@matchmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.22.1i X-GnuPG-Key-URL: http://e-mind.com/~andrea/aa.gnupg.asc X-PGP-Key-URL: http://e-mind.com/~andrea/aa.asc Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 06:30:16PM -0700, Mike Fedyk wrote: > under testing. Also, Andrew found a problem with your locking changes when > he split up your patch, and at the time you were saying it is ready and > there were no bug reports against in... btw, it was a problem only for ext3. > Does this patch conflict in any way with your vm patches? If not they > should be able to co-exist. it will generate rejects, but that's not the problem. My point is that your same argument about merging in later kernels, stable kernel tree, could be applied to patches that makes no difference to users too. Andrea - 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/