From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: use-once-cleanup testing From: Peter Zijlstra In-Reply-To: <43C883AA.30101@cyberone.com.au> References: <20060114000533.GA4111@dmt.cnet> <43C883AA.30101@cyberone.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 09:44:36 +0100 Message-Id: <1137228276.20950.10.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: Marcelo Tosatti , akpm@osdl.org, Rik van Riel , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Bob Picco , Christoph Lameter List-ID: On Sat, 2006-01-14 at 15:52 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > Unfortunately I don't think Andrew wants a bar of any of it. Nor would > a crazy rewrite-pagereclaim tree really get any sort of testing at all, > realistically :( > Both HP and SGI have shown interrest in getting these patches in shape and testing them, so I do think there is quite some interrest in them. I admit that there is still a lot of work to do, like getting the CART policies into the new tree and NUMAfying the CLOCK-Pro and CART policies. And ofcourse rigourous testing. Andrew, what would you need on top of that to start being interrested? Kind regards, PeterZ -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org