From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] PM/Hibernate: Use memory allocations to free memory (rev. 2) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 18:15:32 +0200 Message-ID: <200905031815.33455.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <200905030224.21471.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: kernel-testers-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Andrew Morton , pavel-+ZI9xUNit7I@public.gmane.org, jens.axboe-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, alan-jenkins-cCz0Lq7MMjm9FHfhHBbuYA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, kernel-testers-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-pm-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org On Sunday 03 May 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Sun, 3 May 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > Remove the shrinking of memory from the suspend-to-RAM code, where it is > > not really necessary. > > Hmm. Shouldn't we do this _regardless_? > > IOW, shouldn't this be a totally separate patch? It seems to be left-over > from when we shared the same code-paths, and before the split of the STR > and hibernate code? > > IOW, shouldn't the very _first_ patch just be this part? That code doesn't > make any sense anyway (that FREE_PAGE_NUMBER really _is_ totally > arbitrary). > > This part seems to be totally independent of all the other parts in your > patch-series. No? I'm removing this along with shrink_all_memory() which it depends on, but I can put that into a separate patch if you prefer. Thanks, Rafael From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756877AbZECQQw (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 May 2009 12:16:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756030AbZECQQn (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 May 2009 12:16:43 -0400 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:35290 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754863AbZECQQm (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 May 2009 12:16:42 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] PM/Hibernate: Use memory allocations to free memory (rev. 2) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 18:15:32 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.11.2 (Linux/2.6.30-rc4-rjw; KDE/4.2.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Andrew Morton , pavel@ucw.cz, jens.axboe@oracle.com, alan-jenkins@tuffmail.co.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-testers@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org References: <200905030224.21471.rjw@sisk.pl> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200905031815.33455.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sunday 03 May 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Sun, 3 May 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > Remove the shrinking of memory from the suspend-to-RAM code, where it is > > not really necessary. > > Hmm. Shouldn't we do this _regardless_? > > IOW, shouldn't this be a totally separate patch? It seems to be left-over > from when we shared the same code-paths, and before the split of the STR > and hibernate code? > > IOW, shouldn't the very _first_ patch just be this part? That code doesn't > make any sense anyway (that FREE_PAGE_NUMBER really _is_ totally > arbitrary). > > This part seems to be totally independent of all the other parts in your > patch-series. No? I'm removing this along with shrink_all_memory() which it depends on, but I can put that into a separate patch if you prefer. Thanks, Rafael