On Sun 12-01-14 14:10:49, David Rientjes wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jan 2014, Johannes Weiner wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

It was acked-by Michal.

Michal acked it before we had most of the discussions and now he is
proposing an alternate version of yours, a patch that you are even
discussing with him concurrently in another thread.  To claim he is
still backing your patch because of that initial ack is disingenuous.

His patch depends on mine, Johannes.

Does it? Are we talking about the same patch here?
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/12/12/174

Which depends on yours only to revert your part. I plan to repost it but
that still doesn't mean it will get merged because Johannes still has
some argumnets against. I would like to start the discussion again
because now we are so deep in circles that it is hard to come up with a
reasonable outcome. It is still hard to e.g. agree on an actual fix
for a real problem https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/12/12/129.

While notification might be an issue as well it is more of a corner case
than a regular one. So let's try to move on, agree on the "oom vs.
PF_EXITING) first and lay out discussion for the notification in a new
threa. Shall we?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

--
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>