From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 09:24:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/8] Mapped File Policy Overview In-Reply-To: <1180109165.5730.32.camel@localhost> Message-ID: References: <20070524172821.13933.80093.sendpatchset@localhost> <200705242241.35373.ak@suse.de> <1180040744.5327.110.camel@localhost> <1180104952.5730.28.camel@localhost> <1180109165.5730.32.camel@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Lee Schermerhorn Cc: Andi Kleen , linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, nish.aravamudan@gmail.com List-ID: On Fri, 25 May 2007, Lee Schermerhorn wrote: > True, but shared, mmap'ed file policy does need to be file based, and > that is my objective. I merely point out that we can easily add the > page cache policy as the fall back when a file has no explicit policy. The problem is that you have not given sufficient reason for the modifications. Tru64 compatibility is not a valid reason. > > Could you separate out a patch that fixes these issues? > > Could do, but does that improve the chances for acceptance of this patch > set? If the patch set is accepted, with whatever corrections might be > required, we get the numa_maps fix. So, I'm not currently motivated to > post a separate patch. The patchset as is is not acceptable since it does not follow the standards. The fixes should come first. So you have to do this anyways to get the patchset accepted. -- 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