On Thu, 8 May 2014 15:19:37 +0900 Minchan Kim <minc...@kernel.org> wrote:
> > I also think that VM_DEBUG overhead isn't problem because of same > > reason from Vlastimil. > > Guys, please read this. > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/17/591 > > If you guys really want it, we could separate it with > CONFIG_DEBUG_CMA or CONFIG_DEBUG_RESERVE like stuff. > Otherwise, just remain in mmotm. Wise words, those. Yes, these checks are in a pretty hot path. I'm inclined to make the patch -mm (and -next) only. Unless there's a really good reason, such as "nobody who uses CMA is likely to be testing -next", which sounds likely :( -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
