All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
diff for duplicates of <20111101123608.GD25123@suse.de>

diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt
index 4c57dcb..130b930 100644
--- a/a/1.txt
+++ b/N1/1.txt
@@ -8,13 +8,13 @@ On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 12:22:14AM -0700, Colin Cross wrote:
 > >> > even though they may not pass it.
 > >>
 > >> Only before interrupts are enabled, and then isn't it vulnerable to
-> >> the same livelock?  Interrupts are off, single cpu, kswapd can't run.
+> >> the same livelock?  Interrupts are off, single cpu, kswapd can't run.
 > >> If an allocation ever failed, which seems unlikely, why would retrying
 > >> help?
 > >>
 > >
 > > If you want to claim gfp_allowed_mask as a pm-only entity, then I see no
-> > problem with this approach.  However, if gfp_allowed_mask would be allowed
+> > problem with this approach.  However, if gfp_allowed_mask would be allowed
 > > to temporarily change after init for another purpose then it would make
 > > sense to retry because another allocation with __GFP_FS on another cpu or
 > > kswapd could start making progress could allow for future memory freeing.
@@ -48,3 +48,10 @@ pm_suspending.
 -- 
 Mel Gorman
 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/ .
+Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
+Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest
index 683527a..7172cd9 100644
--- a/a/content_digest
+++ b/N1/content_digest
@@ -30,13 +30,13 @@
  "> >> > even though they may not pass it.\n"
  "> >>\n"
  "> >> Only before interrupts are enabled, and then isn't it vulnerable to\n"
- "> >> the same livelock? \302\240Interrupts are off, single cpu, kswapd can't run.\n"
+ "> >> the same livelock?  Interrupts are off, single cpu, kswapd can't run.\n"
  "> >> If an allocation ever failed, which seems unlikely, why would retrying\n"
  "> >> help?\n"
  "> >>\n"
  "> >\n"
  "> > If you want to claim gfp_allowed_mask as a pm-only entity, then I see no\n"
- "> > problem with this approach. \302\240However, if gfp_allowed_mask would be allowed\n"
+ "> > problem with this approach.  However, if gfp_allowed_mask would be allowed\n"
  "> > to temporarily change after init for another purpose then it would make\n"
  "> > sense to retry because another allocation with __GFP_FS on another cpu or\n"
  "> > kswapd could start making progress could allow for future memory freeing.\n"
@@ -69,6 +69,13 @@
  "\n"
  "-- \n"
  "Mel Gorman\n"
- SUSE Labs
+ "SUSE Labs\n"
+ "\n"
+ "--\n"
+ "To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in\n"
+ "the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,\n"
+ "see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .\n"
+ "Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/\n"
+ "Don't email: <a href=mailto:\"dont@kvack.org\"> email@kvack.org </a>"
 
-50d36c28321f3fef394921f29ab25ec84cb1c90b6759c7098e0668806e2acb83
+a85f2ee8e1832915698bc05d25a1b9d1f6bc4b740d73b662bb96c3edd07ea177

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.