diff for duplicates of <20170830230125.GL13559@redhat.com> diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt index 137f3db..7d611c2 100644 --- a/a/1.txt +++ b/N1/1.txt @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 02:53:38PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > don't have to worry about the few cases that already implemented only > the "invalidate_page()" and "invalidate_range()" cases. > -> So I think that simplifies Jerome's patch further - once you have put +> So I think that simplifies Jérôme's patch further - once you have put > the range_start/end() cases around the inner loop, you can just drop > the invalidate_page() things entirely. > @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 02:53:38PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > That said, the double call shouldn't hurt correctness, and it's > "closer" to old behavior for those people who only did the range/page -> ones, so I wonder if we can keep Jerome's patch in its current state +> ones, so I wonder if we can keep Jérôme's patch in its current state > for 4.13. Yes, the double call doesn't hurt correctness. Keeping it in current @@ -73,9 +73,3 @@ much performance benefit. Thanks, Andrea - --- -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> diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest index 0bb1d24..2a75ab0 100644 --- a/a/content_digest +++ b/N1/content_digest @@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ "> don't have to worry about the few cases that already implemented only\n" "> the \"invalidate_page()\" and \"invalidate_range()\" cases.\n" "> \n" - "> So I think that simplifies Jerome's patch further - once you have put\n" + "> So I think that simplifies J\303\251r\303\264me's patch further - once you have put\n" "> the range_start/end() cases around the inner loop, you can just drop\n" "> the invalidate_page() things entirely.\n" "> \n" @@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ "> \n" "> That said, the double call shouldn't hurt correctness, and it's\n" "> \"closer\" to old behavior for those people who only did the range/page\n" - "> ones, so I wonder if we can keep Jerome's patch in its current state\n" + "> ones, so I wonder if we can keep J\303\251r\303\264me's patch in its current state\n" "> for 4.13.\n" "\n" "Yes, the double call doesn't hurt correctness. Keeping it in current\n" @@ -98,12 +98,6 @@ "much performance benefit.\n" "\n" "Thanks,\n" - "Andrea\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" - "Don't email: <a href=mailto:\"dont@kvack.org\"> email@kvack.org </a>" + Andrea -813c57ac06d94957f2249d547940d0f120dc9c63f5dde0185b4082f9973734bf +bcc72f58563628a880957a3b6004191fb4f1107674c7b5233a73d9a89333a9a5
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.