From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 18:38:15 +0100 From: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [patch 0/4] mm: de-skew page refcount Message-ID: <20060119173815.GA6564@wotan.suse.de> References: <20060118024106.10241.69438.sendpatchset@linux.site> <20060118170558.GE28418@wotan.suse.de> <20060119140039.GA958@wotan.suse.de> <20060119170656.GA9904@wotan.suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Nick Piggin , Linux Memory Management , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Hugh Dickins , Andrew Morton , Andrea Arcangeli , David Miller List-ID: On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 09:27:14AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > > Hmm... this is what the de-skew patch _did_ (although it was wrapped > > in a function called get_page_unless_zero), in fact the main aim was > > to prevent this twiddling and the de-skewing was just a nice side effect > > (I guess the patch title is misleading). > > > > So I'm confused... > > The thing I minded was the _other_ changes, namely the de-skewing itself. > It seemed totally unnecessary to what you claimed was the point of the > patch. > > So I objected to the patch on the grounds that it did what you claimed > badly. All the _optimization_ was totally independent of that de-skewing, > and the de-skewing was a potential un-optimization. > No longer confused... > But if you do the optimizations as one independent set of patches, and > _then_ do the counter thing as a "simplify logic" patch, I don't see that > as a problem. > > Side note: I may be crazy, but for me when merging, one of the biggest > things is "does this pass my 'makes sense' detector". I look less at the > end result, than I actually look at the _change_. See? > > That's why two separate patches that do the same thing as one combined > patch may make sense, even if the _combined_ one does not (it could go the > other way too, obviously). > I agree, and the patches really are cleaner this way too, so again, thanks for the input on them. I'll resend soonish (with a trimmed cc list). Nick -- 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