From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-we0-f178.google.com (mail-we0-f178.google.com [74.125.82.178]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B4836B0031 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 07:24:03 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-we0-f178.google.com with SMTP id u56so4810500wes.9 for ; Fri, 07 Mar 2014 04:24:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.suse.de (cantor2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j6si9094470wje.154.2014.03.07.04.24.00 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 07 Mar 2014 04:24:01 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 13:23:59 +0100 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [patch 00/11] userspace out of memory handling Message-ID: <20140307122359.GA28816@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20140306204923.GF14033@htj.dyndns.org> <20140306205911.GG14033@htj.dyndns.org> <20140306211136.GA17902@htj.dyndns.org> <20140306213324.GG17902@htj.dyndns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140306213324.GG17902@htj.dyndns.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Tejun Heo Cc: David Rientjes , Andrew Morton , Johannes Weiner , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Christoph Lameter , Pekka Enberg , Mel Gorman , Oleg Nesterov , Rik van Riel , Jianguo Wu , Tim Hockin , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org On Thu 06-03-14 16:33:24, Tejun Heo wrote: > A bit of addition. > > On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 01:23:57PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote: > > This patchset provides a solution to a real-world problem that is not > > solved with any other patchset. I expect it to be reviewed as any other > > patchset, it's not an "RFC" from my perspective: it's a proposal for > > inclusion. Don't worry, Andrew is not going to apply anything > > accidentally. > > I can't force it down your throat but I feel somewhat uneasy about how > this was posted without any reference to the previous discussion as if > this were just now being proposed especially as the said discussion > wasn't particularly favorable to this approach. Prefixing RFC or at > least pointing back to the original discussion seems like the > courteous thing to do. Completely agreed! My first impression when I saw the patchset yesterday was that it was posted for sake of future LSF discussion. I was also curious about the missing RFC. Posting it as a proposal for inclusion is premature before any conclusion is reached. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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