From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752353AbbKZHXX (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Nov 2015 02:23:23 -0500 Received: from mail-pa0-f41.google.com ([209.85.220.41]:34488 "EHLO mail-pa0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751423AbbKZHXV (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Nov 2015 02:23:21 -0500 Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 16:24:20 +0900 From: Sergey Senozhatsky To: Minchan Kim Cc: Andrew Morton , Kyeongdon Kim , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Sergey Senozhatsky , Sergey Senozhatsky Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] zram: pass gfp from zcomp frontend to backend Message-ID: <20151126072420.GA685@swordfish> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Minchan Kim wrote: [..] > > Aha, I see. I don't mind to send it to -stable (with __GFP_HIGHMEM fix > > up). Hello Minchan, Sorry for not replying sooner. > Sure. > Can I add your acked-by for [2/3] and [3/3]? > > And I will keep order and add stable mark in [2/3]. yes. a) + __GFP_HIGHMEM in 2/3 and 3/3 b) can I add two small nitpicks from my side? #1 s/could/can/ ? - * This function could be called in swapout/fs write path - * so we couldn't use GFP_FS|IO. And it assumes we already + "This function can be called in swapout/fs write path so we can't use" #2 can you please add spaces around GFP flags? it's just a bit easier to read. GFP_NOIO | __GFP_HIGHMEM | __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOWARN | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC vs GFP_NOIO|__GFP_HIGHMEM|__GFP_NORETRY|__GFP_NOWARN|__GFP_NOMEMALLOC c) Acked-by: Sergey Senozhatsky Thank you. -ss