RE: [PATCH V8 3/4] mm: frontswap: add swap hooks and extendtry_to_unuse

[Dan Magenheimer]

> From: Andrew Morton [mailto:akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:27 PM
> To: Dan Magenheimer
> Subject: Re: [PATCH V8 3/4] mm: frontswap: add swap hooks and extend try_to_unuse
> 
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 09:49:29 -0700
> Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > -static int try_to_unuse(unsigned int type)
> > +int try_to_unuse(unsigned int type, bool frontswap,
> 
> Are patches 2 and 3 in the wrong order?

No, they've applied in that order and built after each patch
properly for well over a year.  At a minimum, frontswap.h must
be created before patch 3of4, though I suppose the introduction
of frontswap.c could be after patch 3of4... Note that frontswap.c
(which calls try_to_unuse()) is non-functional (and isn't even built)
until after patch 4of4 is applied.

There is enough interdependency between the four parts
that perhaps it should all be a single commit.  I split
it up for reviewer's convenience but apparently different
reviewers use different review processes than I anticipated. :-}

Bottom line though: yes, bisecting at any point in the
patchset does work properly.

Dan
--
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/