From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx151.postini.com [74.125.245.151]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 237B66B004D for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 04:02:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <501A3357.9000607@parallels.com> Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 11:59:19 +0400 From: Glauber Costa MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Common [00/16] Sl[auo]b: Common code rework V8 References: <20120801211130.025389154@linux.com> In-Reply-To: <20120801211130.025389154@linux.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Pekka Enberg , linux-mm@kvack.org, David Rientjes , Joonsoo Kim On 08/02/2012 01:11 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > V7->V8: > - Do not use kfree for kmem_cache in slub. > - Add more patches up to a common > scheme for object alignment. I will review the new patchset anyway. But I believe this is a bad move. This code is subtle, and all previous pieces that got merged led to bugs. Which is fine in principle, but indicates that we should move and review with care. Adding more code to the pool defeats this. I'd say let's merge what was already reviewed, and then take the next step. That said, unless I am missing something, you seem to have added nothing in the middle of the series, all new patches go in the end. Am I right? In this case, we could merge patches 1-9 if Pekka is fine with them, and then move on. -- 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