Re: 2.6.29 -mm merge plans

Andrew Morton
2009-01-12T22:08:52Z

On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 23:28:26 +1100
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> On Monday 05 January 2009 19:43:00 Andrew Morton wrote:
> > The individual patches are mostly at
> > http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/mmotm/broken-out/
> >
> >
> > mm-remove-the-might_sleep-from-lock_page.patch
> >
> > Need to think about this.
>
> Removing this reduces a lot of might_sleep coverage scope. Page
> lock isn't contended in a lot of cases. Why would you drop a
> good debugging feature?

For the reasons described in the changelog, of course.

http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/mmotm/broken-out/mm-remove-the-might_sleep-from-lock_page.patch

> > mm-direct-io-starvation-improvement.patch
> > fs-remove-wb_sync_hold.patch
> > fs-sync_sb_inodes-fix.patch
> > fs-sys_sync-fix.patch
> > radix-tree-gang-set-if-tagged-operation.patch
>
> This one is unneeded because you didn't take the fsync livelock avoidance
> patch that makes use of the new function.

OK

> > make-sure-nobodys-leaking-resources.patch
> > releasing-resources-with-children.patch
>
> Any reason why not to add these upstream?

Dunno. Are they valuable? I've never had a report of them triggering,
I don't think.

> > nr_blockdev_pages-in_interrupt-warning.patch
>
> Lockdep should catch this, I guess.

Yup. I forget why I added it.

> > put_bh-debug.patch
>
> This could just be implemented with a VM_BUG_ON (or FS_BUG_ON) like the
> pagecache refcounting. Wouldn't be a bad idea.

yup, I guess so. Again, no reports of it triggering in ages.

> > add-a-refcount-check-in-dput.patch
>
> Again, why not an FS_BUG_ON for things like this too?

Ditto.