From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753476Ab3A3EcT (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jan 2013 23:32:19 -0500 Received: from LGEMRELSE7Q.lge.com ([156.147.1.151]:48161 "EHLO LGEMRELSE7Q.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752990Ab3A3EcQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jan 2013 23:32:16 -0500 X-AuditID: 9c930197-b7ca4ae000006ba8-30-5108a24f4e8e Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 13:32:14 +0900 From: Minchan Kim To: Seth Jennings Cc: Joe Perches , Andrew Morton , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Nitin Gupta , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , Dan Magenheimer , Robert Jennings , Jenifer Hopper , Mel Gorman , Johannes Weiner , Rik van Riel , Larry Woodman , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Dave Hansen , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 0/7] zswap: compressed swap caching Message-ID: <20130130043214.GC2580@blaptop> References: <1359495627-30285-1-git-send-email-sjenning@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1359497685.16868.11.camel@joe-AO722> <510851E0.8000009@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <510851E0.8000009@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 04:49:04PM -0600, Seth Jennings wrote: > On 01/29/2013 04:14 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Tue, 2013-01-29 at 15:40 -0600, Seth Jennings wrote: > >> The code required for the flushing is in a separate patch now > >> as requested. > > > > What tree does this apply to? > > Both -next and linus fail to compile. > > Link to build instruction in the cover letter: > > >> NOTE: To build, read this: > >> http://lkml.org/lkml/2013/1/28/586 > > The complexity is due to a conflict with a zsmalloc patch in Greg's > staging tree that has yet to make its way upstream. > > Sorry for the inconvenience. Seth, Please don't ignore previous review if you didn't convince reviewer. I don't want to consume time with arguing trivial things. Copy and Paste from previous discussion from zsmalloc pathset > > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:46:14AM -0600, Seth Jennings wrote: > > >> These patches are the first 4 patches of the zswap patchset I > > >> sent out previously. Some recent commits to zsmalloc and > > >> zcache in staging-next forced a rebase. While I was at it, Nitin > > >> (zsmalloc maintainer) requested I break these 4 patches out from > > >> the zswap patchset, since they stand on their own. > > > > > > [2/4] and [4/4] is okay to merge current zsmalloc in staging but > > > [1/4] and [3/4] is dependent on zswap so it should be part of > > > zswap patchset. > > > > Just to clarify, patches 1 and 3 are _not_ dependent on zswap. They > > just introduce changes that are only needed by zswap. > > I don't think so. If zswap might be not merged, we don't need [1, 3] > at the moment. You could argue that [1, 3] make zsmalloc more flexible > and I agree. BUT I want it when we have needs. It would be not too late. > So [1,3] should be part of zswap patchset. -- Kind regards, Minchan Kim