From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>,
Hiroyuki Kamezawa <kamezawa.hiroyuki@gmail.com>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"Kleen, Andi" <andi.kleen@intel.com>,
Haicheng Li <haicheng.li@linux.intel.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Mel Gorman <mel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/2][BUGFIX] fix memory isolation notifier return value check
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 13:48:14 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100903134814.b7129f7b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100903165713.88249349.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 16:57:13 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> Sorry, the 3rd patch for this set.
What happened with "[PATCH 2/2] Make is_mem_section_removable more
conformable with offlining code"? You mentioned sending an updated
one, but I can't immediately find it.
Also, please do describe the impact of the problems which are being
fixed. It helps me decide on priority and on
which-kernels-need-the-patch and it helps others when deciding
should-i-backport-this-into-my-kernel.
I think it'd be best to resend all of this, please.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>,
Hiroyuki Kamezawa <kamezawa.hiroyuki@gmail.com>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"Kleen, Andi" <andi.kleen@intel.com>,
Haicheng Li <haicheng.li@linux.intel.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Mel Gorman <mel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/2][BUGFIX] fix memory isolation notifier return value check
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 13:48:14 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100903134814.b7129f7b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100903165713.88249349.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 16:57:13 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> Sorry, the 3rd patch for this set.
What happened with "[PATCH 2/2] Make is_mem_section_removable more
conformable with offlining code"? You mentioned sending an updated
one, but I can't immediately find it.
Also, please do describe the impact of the problems which are being
fixed. It helps me decide on priority and on
which-kernels-need-the-patch and it helps others when deciding
should-i-backport-this-into-my-kernel.
I think it'd be best to resend all of this, please.
--
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>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-09-03 20:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 72+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-08-20 14:14 [PATCH] Make is_mem_section_removable more conformable with offlining code Michal Hocko
2010-08-20 14:14 ` Michal Hocko
2010-08-22 0:42 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-22 0:42 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-23 9:22 ` Michal Hocko
2010-08-23 9:22 ` Michal Hocko
2010-08-31 12:30 ` Michal Hocko
2010-08-31 12:30 ` Michal Hocko
2010-08-31 14:19 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-31 14:19 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-31 14:36 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-31 14:36 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-31 14:59 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-31 14:59 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-09-01 1:19 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-09-01 1:19 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-09-01 12:19 ` Michal Hocko
2010-09-01 12:19 ` Michal Hocko
2010-09-01 12:41 ` Michal Hocko
2010-09-01 12:41 ` Michal Hocko
2010-09-02 5:45 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-09-02 5:45 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-09-02 8:28 ` Michal Hocko
2010-09-02 8:28 ` Michal Hocko
2010-09-02 9:03 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-09-02 9:03 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-09-02 9:24 ` Michal Hocko
2010-09-02 9:24 ` Michal Hocko
2010-09-02 11:19 ` Hiroyuki Kamezawa
2010-09-02 11:19 ` Hiroyuki Kamezawa
2010-09-02 13:18 ` Michal Hocko
2010-09-02 13:18 ` Michal Hocko
2010-09-02 14:19 ` Hiroyuki Kamezawa
2010-09-02 14:19 ` Hiroyuki Kamezawa
2010-09-02 14:39 ` Michal Hocko
2010-09-02 14:39 ` Michal Hocko
2010-09-02 15:05 ` Michal Hocko
2010-09-02 15:05 ` Michal Hocko
2010-09-03 3:10 ` [PATCH 0/2 v2] " KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-09-03 3:10 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-09-03 3:11 ` [PATCH 1/2][BUGFIX] fix next active pageblock calculation KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-09-03 3:11 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-09-03 3:14 ` [PATCH 2/2] Make is_mem_section_removable more conformable with offlining code KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-09-03 3:14 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-09-03 8:25 ` Michal Hocko
2010-09-03 8:25 ` Michal Hocko
2010-09-03 9:13 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-09-03 9:13 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-09-03 9:50 ` Michal Hocko
2010-09-03 9:50 ` Michal Hocko
2010-09-03 10:05 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-09-03 10:05 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-09-03 11:01 ` Michal Hocko
2010-09-03 11:01 ` Michal Hocko
2010-09-03 11:42 ` [PATCH 2/2] Make is_mem_section_removable more conformable with offlining code v3 Michal Hocko
2010-09-03 11:42 ` Michal Hocko
2010-09-04 2:55 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-09-04 2:55 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-09-06 9:16 ` Michal Hocko
2010-09-06 9:16 ` Michal Hocko
2010-09-03 9:15 ` [PATCH 2/2] Make is_mem_section_removable more conformable with offlining code Michal Hocko
2010-09-03 9:15 ` Michal Hocko
2010-09-03 9:24 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-09-03 9:24 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-09-03 7:54 ` [PATCH 0/2 v2] " Michal Hocko
2010-09-03 7:54 ` Michal Hocko
2010-09-03 7:57 ` [PATCH 3/2][BUGFIX] fix memory isolation notifier return value check KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-09-03 7:57 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-09-03 20:48 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2010-09-03 20:48 ` Andrew Morton
2010-09-03 22:05 ` Hiroyuki Kamezawa
2010-09-03 22:05 ` Hiroyuki Kamezawa
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20100903134814.b7129f7b.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andi.kleen@intel.com \
--cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=haicheng.li@linux.intel.com \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyuki@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mel@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=mhocko@suse.cz \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.