From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932207AbXCFLPG (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Mar 2007 06:15:06 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S933242AbXCFLPG (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Mar 2007 06:15:06 -0500 Received: from ausmtp04.au.ibm.com ([202.81.18.152]:57702 "EHLO ausmtp04.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932207AbXCFLPE (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Mar 2007 06:15:04 -0500 Message-ID: <45ED4CF7.7030501@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 16:43:59 +0530 From: Vaidyanathan Srinivasan Organization: IBM User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Shane CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, riel@redhat.com, vatsa@in.ibm.com, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, balbir@in.ibm.com, xemul@sw.ru, menage@google.com, devel@openvz.org, clameter@sgi.com Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 3/3][RFC] Containers: Pagecache controller reclaim References: <20070305145237.003560000@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > <20070305145311.247699000@linux.vnet.ibm.com>> <1173178212.4998.54.camel@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <1173178212.4998.54.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Shane wrote: > Anyone else have trouble fitting this patch ???. > I see a later version today, but not markedly different from this > mornings (Aus time). Initially I thought I had the first version, prior > to Balbir's RSS controller V2 re-write, but apparently not. > Kernel 2.6.20.1 Hi Shane, I did post the same patch again today since the previous post yesterday did not showup on LKML. I have not changed the version since it is the same patch. Next time around i will explicitly mention that this is the same patch posted again. > Had to toss it away so I could do some base line testing - I'll redo the > build and see where the mis-matches are. Please let me know if so see any problem running the patch. The patches are against 2.6.20 only since dependent patches are at that level. --Vaidy