Re: [PATCHv3 0/8] introduce dynamic device creation/removal

Sergey Senozhatsky
2015-04-16T00:30:20Z

Hello,

On (04/16/15 08:40), Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 02:37:17PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 3 Mar 2015 21:49:42 +0900 Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > This patchset introduces zram-control sysfs class, which has two sysfs
> > > attrs:
> > > - zram_add -- add a new specific (device_id) zram device
> > > - zram_remove -- remove a specific (device_id) zram device
> >
> > This patchset and the "make automatic device_id generation possible"
> > still appear to have quite a few unresolved issues. So I'm holding
> > them out of the 4.1 merge window.
>
> There is no unresolved issue to me. Only one thing I suspect was the
> feature user enforce new device id for dynamic device addition and
> we finally decided to remove the function because there was no useful
> usecase at this point.

I'm not aware of any unresolved issues. am I missing something?

> Sergey and other userland people agreed that
> so Sergey sent a patch [zram: do not let user enforce new device dev_id]
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/3/6/427
> So, I'm happy with that. Acutally, I wanted to resend whole patchset
> for dynamic device creation/remove patchset with corrected version
> (ie, remove user enforce new device id) to avoid confusion but didn't
> said it to Sergey. It was my bad.
>
> Sergey, Could you resend this patchset without user's enforce device id
> function based on new -rc1?

ok, agree. I'll re-submit later today.

-ss

> >
> > Unfortunately these were the first-arriving zram patches, so the later
> > ones required quite a bit of mangling. Hopefully I got it all right.
> >
> > This was all a bit disruptive. Please let's not leave major patchsets
> > floating about in an incomplete/unresolved state for week after week?
>
> I will keep it in mind.
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Kind regards,
> Minchan Kim
>