From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <owner-linux-mm@kvack.org>
Received: from mail-pl0-f72.google.com (mail-pl0-f72.google.com [209.85.160.72])
	by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 095E06B0062
	for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 16:54:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mail-pl0-f72.google.com with SMTP id h12-v6so572140pls.23
        for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 13:54:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org (mail.linuxfoundation.org. [140.211.169.12])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f34-v6si3460155ple.622.2018.04.10.13.54.30
        for <linux-mm@kvack.org>
        (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
        Tue, 10 Apr 2018 13:54:30 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 13:54:29 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v29 1/4] mm: support reporting free page blocks
Message-Id: <20180410135429.d1aeeb91d7f2754ffe7fb80e@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20180410211719-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
References: <1522031994-7246-1-git-send-email-wei.w.wang@intel.com>
	<1522031994-7246-2-git-send-email-wei.w.wang@intel.com>
	<20180326142254.c4129c3a54ade686ee2a5e21@linux-foundation.org>
	<20180410211719-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org
List-ID: <linux-mm.kvack.org>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc: Wei Wang <wei.w.wang@intel.com>, virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, mhocko@kernel.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, liliang.opensource@gmail.com, yang.zhang.wz@gmail.com, quan.xu0@gmail.com, nilal@redhat.com, riel@redhat.com, huangzhichao@huawei.com

On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 21:19:31 +0300 "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:

> 
> Andrew, were your questions answered? If yes could I bother you for an ack on this?
> 

Still not very happy that readers are told that "this function may
sleep" when it clearly doesn't do so.  If we wish to be able to change
it to sleep in the future then that should be mentioned.  And even put a
might_sleep() in there, to catch people who didn't read the comments...

Otherwise it looks OK.