Re: [PATCH 3/3] introduce HIGH_ORDER delineating easily reclaimableorders

[Andy Whitcroft]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 01:28:43 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> It would have been better to have patched page_alloc.c independently, then
>> to have used HIGH_ORDER in "lumpy: increase pressure at the end of the inactive
>> list".
> 
> Actually that doesn't matter, because I plan on lumping all the lumpy patches
> together into one lump.
> 
> I was going to duck patches #2 and #3, such was my outrage.  But given that
> it's all lined up to be a single patch, followup cleanup patches will fit in
> OK.  Please.

Yes.  Its funny how you can get so close to a change that you can no
longer see the obvious warts on it.

I am actually travelling today, so it'll be tommorrow now.  But I'll
roll the cleanups and get them to you.  I can also offer you a clean
drop in lumpy stack with the HIGH_ORDER change pulled out to the top
once you are happy.

-apw

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/