Re: [PATCH v2] mm, compaction: properly signal and act upon lock and need_sched() contention

[Fabio Estevam]

Vlastimil,

On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 5:34 AM, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> Really sorry, guys :/
>
> -----8<-----
> From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 10:18:56 +0200
> Subject: mm-compaction-properly-signal-and-act-upon-lock-and-need_sched-contention-fix2
>
> Step 1: Change function name and comment between v1 and v2 so that the return
>         value signals the opposite thing.
> Step 2: Change the call sites to reflect the opposite return value.
> Step 3: ???
> Step 4: Make a complete fool of yourself.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>
> ---
>  mm/compaction.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/compaction.c b/mm/compaction.c
> index a525cd4..5175019 100644
> --- a/mm/compaction.c
> +++ b/mm/compaction.c
> @@ -237,13 +237,13 @@ static inline bool compact_should_abort(struct compact_control *cc)
>         if (need_resched()) {
>                 if (cc->mode == MIGRATE_ASYNC) {
>                         cc->contended = true;
> -                       return false;
> +                       return true;
>                 }
>
>                 cond_resched();
>         }
>
> -       return true;
> +       return false;
>  }

This patch is still not in linux-next.

Could you please submit it formally?
--
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/