From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752609AbbKZHi6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Nov 2015 02:38:58 -0500 Received: from mail-io0-f181.google.com ([209.85.223.181]:35521 "EHLO mail-io0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751968AbbKZHiz (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Nov 2015 02:38:55 -0500 Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 16:39:54 +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: <20151126073954.GC685@swordfish> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151125152025.GB12747@bbox> 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 [sorry, ended up screwing up Message-Id in In-Reply-To! resending] ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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