On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > Neither of us has yet posted a correct patch which applies to 2.6.23 > > and 2.6.22. I'm testing your 2.6.24-rc patch overnight, and if that's > > fine then one of us will post the version for -stable. I thought I'd > > better leave that to you, after I've reported back. > > Ok.
That testing went fine, as you'd expect. Your diffstat is certainly nicer than mine (corrected for SlabDebug) would be. I expect you'll go ahead with yours. But I remain slightly uneasy about it: I do think your original instinct, in putting in the code you're now removing, was good. In a low memory situation, when several tasks pile up to allocate the same resource, we'd usually free back all but the first, rather than depleting free memory even more than necessary. That you were doing before, now you take the simpler way out and don't bother. I've no evidence that this is a significant issue: just mention it in case it gives you second thoughts e.g. was there a concrete scenario, other than instinct, which led you to put in that code originally? Hugh - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
