Re: [PATCH] mm, memcg: fix wrong mem cgroup protection

[Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>]

Yafang Shao writes:
>If the author can't understand deeply in the code worte by
>himself/herself, I think the author should do more test on his/her
>patches.
>Regarding the issue in this case, my understanding is you know the
>benefit of proportional reclaim, but I'm wondering that do you know
>the loss if the proportional is not correct ?
>I don't mean to affend you, while I just try to explain how the
>community should cooperate.

I'm pretty sure that since multiple people on mm list have already expressed 
confusion at this patch, this isn't a question of testing, but of lack of 
clarity in usage :-)

Promoting "testing" as a panacea for this issue misses a significant part of 
the real problem: that the intended semantics and room for allowed races is 
currently unclear, which is why there is a general sense of confusion around 
your proposed patch and what it solves. If more testing would help, then the 
benefit of your patch should be patently obvious -- but it isn't.