Re: [PATCH v2] mm/damon/core: set quota->charged_from to jiffies at first charge window

[SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org>]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 22:41:48 -0700 SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 13:29:04 +0900 Sang-Heon Jeon <ekffu200098@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 11:54 AM SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 10:08:03 +0900 Sang-Heon Jeon <ekffu200098@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 3:27 AM SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 22:18:53 +0900 Sang-Heon Jeon <ekffu200098@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hello, SeongJae
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 2:27 AM SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 00:01:23 +0900 Sang-Heon Jeon <ekffu200098@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > I think that I checked about user impact already but it should be
> > > > insufficient. As you said, I should discuss it first. Anyway, the
> > > > whole thing is my mistake. I'm really so sorry.
> > >
> > > Everyone makes mistakes.  You don't need to apologize.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > So, Would it be better to send an RFC patch even now, instead of
> > > > asking on this email thread? (I'll make next v3 patch with RFC tag,
> > > > it's not question of v3 direction and just about remained question on
> > > > this email thread)
> > >
> > > If you unsure something and there is no reason to send a patch without a
> > > discussion for the point, please discuss first.  To be honest I don't
> > > understand the above question at all.
> > 
> > Ah, I just mean that I need to make a new RFC patch instead of
> > replying to this email thread.
> 
> Why?
> 
> > I'll just keep asking about previous
> > comments on this email thread.
> 
> You said you will send a new patch instead of replying here, and then now you
> are saying you will keep aking to this thread.
> 
> I'm confused.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Ok, I think this discussion is going unnecessarily deep and only wasting our
> time at clarifying intention of past sentence.  Meanwhile apparently you
> understood my major points.  To repeat, please clarify what is the problem and
> user impacts, when and how it happens, and why the solution solves it.
> 
> Let's restart.  Could you please rewrite the commit log for this patch and send
> the draft as a reply to this?
> 
> We can further discuss on the new draft if it has more things to improve.  And
> once the discussion is finalized, you can post v4 of this patch with the
> updated commit message.

s/v4/v3/

Sorry for the typo.


Thanks,
SJ

[...]