Re: [PATCH] for_each_zone / for_each_pgdat

Mike Fedyk
2002-04-16T01:27:57Z

On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 02:44:58AM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 04:20:58PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> > I won't scream too loud, but I think it's pretty much done right as is.
>
> Regardless if that's the cleaner implementation or not, I don't see much
> the point of merging those cleanups in 2.4 right now: it won't make any
> functional difference to users and it's only a self contained code
> cleanup, while other patches that make a runtime difference aren't
> merged yet.
>

One set (1 of 3) of you vm patches have already gone into 2.4.19-pre and
IMHO, each set should go into a major release seperately (2.4.19/20/21).
There are so many more people who use the released versions than the -pre
versions of the kernel.

No matter how much someone can go through their own code and say "it's
ready" there's always a good chance there is some bug that will trigger
under testing. Also, Andrew found a problem with your locking changes when
he split up your patch, and at the time you were saying it is ready and
there were no bug reports against in...

Now I doubt that there is anything to worry about, we are talking about a
stable kernel series here.

Does this patch conflict in any way with your vm patches? If not they
should be able to co-exist.