From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 01:32:10 -0700 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] introduce HIGH_ORDER delineating easily reclaimable orders Message-Id: <20070421013210.1bed9ceb.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20070421012843.f5a814eb.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <20070421012843.f5a814eb.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andy Whitcroft , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mel Gorman List-ID: On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 01:28:43 -0700 Andrew Morton 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. -- 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