From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 12:54:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20070504.125442.70218284.davem@davemloft.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/40] Swap over Networked storage -v12 From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <170fa0d20705041109j1d130456p4b7cef3633f8edb4@mail.gmail.com> References: <1178293081.24217.46.camel@twins> <1178294379.7997.26.camel@imap.mvista.com> <170fa0d20705041109j1d130456p4b7cef3633f8edb4@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org From: "Mike Snitzer" Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 14:09:40 -0400 Return-Path: To: snitzer@gmail.com Cc: dwalker@mvista.com, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no, tgraf@suug.ch, James.Bottomley@steeleye.com, michaelc@cs.wisc.edu, akpm@linux-foundation.org, phillips@google.com List-ID: > These suggestions conflict in the case of a large patchset: the second > can't be met if you honor the first (more important suggestion IMHO). > Unless you leave something out... and I can't see the value in leaving > out the auxiliary consumers of the core changes. They do not conflict. If you say you're setting up infrastructure for a well defined purpose, then each and every one of the patches can all stand on their own just fine. You can even post them one at a time and the review process would work just fine. -- 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