On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 03:38:39PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:

On 06/29/2012 02:25 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:

quoted

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 13:01:23 +0400
Glauber Costa [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

...

OK, that all sounds convincing ;) Please summarise and capture this
discussion in the [patch 0/n] changelog so we (or others) don't have to
go through this all again.  And let's remember this in the next
patchset!

Thanks, will surely do.

quoted

quoted

Last, but not least, note that it is totally within my interests to
merge the slab tracking as fast as we can. it'll be a matter of going
back to it, and agreeing in the final form.

Yes, I'd very much like to have the whole slab implementation in a
reasonably mature state before proceeding too far with this base
patchset.

Does that means that you want to merge them together? I am more than
happy to post the slab part again ontop of that to have people reviewing it.

But if possible, I believe that merging this part first would help us to
split up testing in a beneficial way, in the sense that if it breaks, we
know at least in which part it is. Not to mention, of course, that
reviewers will have an easier time reviewing it as two pieces.

Definetly yeah. This makes the review easier for this tricky chunk.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>