From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
Cc: Seth Jennings <sjenning@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
devel@driverdev.osuosl.org,
Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@oracle.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Robert Jennings <rcj@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Nitin Gupta <ngupta@vflare.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: zsmalloc: add user-definable alloc/free funcs
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:06:00 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120327170600.GA18222@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120326155018.GA6163@phenom.dumpdata.com>
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 11:50:19AM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 04:34:09PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 01:54:56PM -0500, Seth Jennings wrote:
> > > > I'm sorry, I know this isn't fair for your specific patch, but we have
> > > > to stop this sometime, and as this patch adds code isn't even used by
> > > > anyone, its a good of a time as any.
> > >
> > > So, this the my first "promotion from staging" rodeo. I would love to
> > > see this code mainlined ASAP. How would I/we go about doing that?
> >
> > What subsystem should this code live in? The -mm code, I'm guessing,
> > right? If so, submit it to the linux-mm mailing list for inclusion, you
> > can point them at what is in drivers/staging right now, or probably it's
> > easier if you just make a new patch that adds the code that is in
> > drivers/staging/ to the correct location in the kernel. That way it's
> > easier to review and change. When it finally gets accepted, we can then
> > delete the drivers/staging code.
>
>
> Hey Greg,
>
> Little background - for zcache to kick-butts (both Dan and Seth posted some
> pretty awesome benchmark numbers) it depends on the frontswap - which is in
> the #linux-next. Dan made an attempt to post it for a GIT PULL and an interesting
> conversation ensued where folks decided it needs more additions before they were
> comfortable with it. zcache isn't using those additions, but I don't see why
> it couldn't use them.
>
> The things that bouncing around in my head are:
> - get a punch-out list (ie todo) of what MM needs for the zcache to get out.
> I think posting it as a new driver would be right way to do it (And then
> based on feedback work out the issues in drivers/staging). But what
> about authorship - there are mulitple authors ?
What does authorship matter here? To move files out of staging, just
send a patch that does that, all authorship history is preserved.
And as a new driver, that's up to the mm developers, not me.
> - zcache is a bit different that the normal drivers type - and it is unclear
> yet what will be required to get it out - and both Seth and Nitin have this
> hungry look in their eyes of wanting to make it super-duper. So doing
> the work to do it - is not going to be a problem at all - just some form
> of clear goals of what we need "now" vs "would love to have".
Again, work with the -mm developers.
> - folks are using it, which means continued -stable kernel back-porting.
What do you mean by this?
> So with that in mind I was wondering whether you would be up for:
> - me sending to you before a merge window some updates to the zcache
> as a git pull - that way you won't have to deal with a bunch of
> small patches and when there is something you don't like we can fix
> it up to your liking. The goal would be for us - Dan, Nitin, Seth and me
> working on promoting the driver out of staging and you won't have to
> be bugged every time we have a new change that might be perceived
> as feature, but is in fact a step towards mainstreaming it. I figured
> that is what you are most annoyed at - handling those uncoordinated
> requests and not seeing a clear target.
Lots of small patches are fine, as long as they are obviously working
toward getting the code out of staging. This specific patch was just
adding a new feature, one that no one could even use, so that was not
something that would help it get out of the staging tree.
So no, I don't need patches batched up, and a git pull, I just need to
see that every patch I am sent is working toward getting it out of here.
> - alongside of that, I work on making those frontswap changes folks
> have asked for. Since those changes can affect zcache, that means
> adding them in zcache alongside.
Ok.
> Hopefully, by the time those two items are done, both pieces can go in
> the kernel at the same time-ish.
That would be good to see have happen.
thanks,
greg k-h
--
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>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
Cc: Seth Jennings <sjenning@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
devel@driverdev.osuosl.org,
Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@oracle.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Robert Jennings <rcj@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Nitin Gupta <ngupta@vflare.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: zsmalloc: add user-definable alloc/free funcs
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:06:00 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120327170600.GA18222@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120326155018.GA6163@phenom.dumpdata.com>
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 11:50:19AM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 04:34:09PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 01:54:56PM -0500, Seth Jennings wrote:
> > > > I'm sorry, I know this isn't fair for your specific patch, but we have
> > > > to stop this sometime, and as this patch adds code isn't even used by
> > > > anyone, its a good of a time as any.
> > >
> > > So, this the my first "promotion from staging" rodeo. I would love to
> > > see this code mainlined ASAP. How would I/we go about doing that?
> >
> > What subsystem should this code live in? The -mm code, I'm guessing,
> > right? If so, submit it to the linux-mm mailing list for inclusion, you
> > can point them at what is in drivers/staging right now, or probably it's
> > easier if you just make a new patch that adds the code that is in
> > drivers/staging/ to the correct location in the kernel. That way it's
> > easier to review and change. When it finally gets accepted, we can then
> > delete the drivers/staging code.
>
>
> Hey Greg,
>
> Little background - for zcache to kick-butts (both Dan and Seth posted some
> pretty awesome benchmark numbers) it depends on the frontswap - which is in
> the #linux-next. Dan made an attempt to post it for a GIT PULL and an interesting
> conversation ensued where folks decided it needs more additions before they were
> comfortable with it. zcache isn't using those additions, but I don't see why
> it couldn't use them.
>
> The things that bouncing around in my head are:
> - get a punch-out list (ie todo) of what MM needs for the zcache to get out.
> I think posting it as a new driver would be right way to do it (And then
> based on feedback work out the issues in drivers/staging). But what
> about authorship - there are mulitple authors ?
What does authorship matter here? To move files out of staging, just
send a patch that does that, all authorship history is preserved.
And as a new driver, that's up to the mm developers, not me.
> - zcache is a bit different that the normal drivers type - and it is unclear
> yet what will be required to get it out - and both Seth and Nitin have this
> hungry look in their eyes of wanting to make it super-duper. So doing
> the work to do it - is not going to be a problem at all - just some form
> of clear goals of what we need "now" vs "would love to have".
Again, work with the -mm developers.
> - folks are using it, which means continued -stable kernel back-porting.
What do you mean by this?
> So with that in mind I was wondering whether you would be up for:
> - me sending to you before a merge window some updates to the zcache
> as a git pull - that way you won't have to deal with a bunch of
> small patches and when there is something you don't like we can fix
> it up to your liking. The goal would be for us - Dan, Nitin, Seth and me
> working on promoting the driver out of staging and you won't have to
> be bugged every time we have a new change that might be perceived
> as feature, but is in fact a step towards mainstreaming it. I figured
> that is what you are most annoyed at - handling those uncoordinated
> requests and not seeing a clear target.
Lots of small patches are fine, as long as they are obviously working
toward getting the code out of staging. This specific patch was just
adding a new feature, one that no one could even use, so that was not
something that would help it get out of the staging tree.
So no, I don't need patches batched up, and a git pull, I just need to
see that every patch I am sent is working toward getting it out of here.
> - alongside of that, I work on making those frontswap changes folks
> have asked for. Since those changes can affect zcache, that means
> adding them in zcache alongside.
Ok.
> Hopefully, by the time those two items are done, both pieces can go in
> the kernel at the same time-ish.
That would be good to see have happen.
thanks,
greg k-h
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-03-27 17:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-03-16 21:04 [PATCH] staging: zsmalloc: add user-definable alloc/free funcs Seth Jennings
2012-03-16 21:04 ` Seth Jennings
2012-03-16 21:32 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2012-03-16 21:32 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2012-03-19 18:54 ` Seth Jennings
2012-03-19 18:54 ` Seth Jennings
2012-03-19 23:34 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2012-03-19 23:34 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2012-03-26 15:50 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2012-03-26 15:50 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2012-03-27 17:06 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman [this message]
2012-03-27 17:06 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
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=20120327170600.GA18222@kroah.com \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=dan.magenheimer@oracle.com \
--cc=devel@driverdev.osuosl.org \
--cc=konrad.wilk@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=ngupta@vflare.org \
--cc=rcj@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=sjenning@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/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.