From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ie0-f169.google.com (mail-ie0-f169.google.com [209.85.223.169]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 417D8280246 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2015 12:08:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: by iecvh10 with SMTP id vh10so59927611iec.3 for ; Thu, 02 Jul 2015 09:08:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ig0-x229.google.com (mail-ig0-x229.google.com. [2607:f8b0:4001:c05::229]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q137si6171037ioe.103.2015.07.02.09.08.38 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 02 Jul 2015 09:08:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by igcsj18 with SMTP id sj18so165936566igc.1 for ; Thu, 02 Jul 2015 09:08:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <55956204.2060006@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2015 12:08:36 -0400 From: nick MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm:Make the function zap_huge_pmd bool References: <1435775277-27381-1-git-send-email-xerofoify@gmail.com> <20150702072621.GB12547@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20150702160341.GC9456@thunk.org> In-Reply-To: <20150702160341.GC9456@thunk.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Theodore Ts'o , Michal Hocko , akpm@linux-foundation.org, mgorman@suse.de, n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com, sasha.levin@oracle.com, Yalin.Wang@sonymobile.com, jmarchan@redhat.com, kirill@shutemov.name, rientjes@google.com, vbabka@suse.cz, aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, ebru.akagunduz@gmail.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org On 2015-07-02 12:03 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 09:26:21AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: >> On Wed 01-07-15 14:27:57, Nicholas Krause wrote: >>> This makes the function zap_huge_pmd have a return type of bool >>> now due to this particular function always returning one or zero >>> as its return value. >> >> How does this help anything? IMO this just generates a pointless churn >> in the code without a good reason. > > Hi Michal, > > My recommendation is to ignore patches sent by Nick. In my experience > he doesn't understand code before trying to make mechanical changes, > and very few of his patches add any new value, and at least one that > he tried to send me just 2 weeks or so ago (cherry-picked to try to > "prove" why he had turned over a new leaf, so that I would support the > removal of his e-mail address from being blacklisted on > vger.kernel.org) was buggy, and when I asked him some basic questions > about what the code was doing, it was clear he had no clue how the > seq_file abstraction worked. This didn't stop him from trying to > patch the code, and if he had tested it, it would have crashed and > burned instantly. > > Of course, do whatevery you want, but IMHO it's not really not worth > your time to deal with his patches, and if you reply, most people > won't see his original e-mail since the vger.kernel.org blacklist is > still in effect. > > Regards, > > - Ted > Ted, I looked into that patch further and would were correct it was wrong. However here is a bug fix for the drm driver code that somebody else stated was right but haven gotten a reply to from the maintainer and have tried resending. Nick