From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755542AbbDPAaU (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Apr 2015 20:30:20 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f41.google.com ([209.85.220.41]:34993 "EHLO mail-pa0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751621AbbDPAaN (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Apr 2015 20:30:13 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 09:30:26 +0900 From: Sergey Senozhatsky To: Andrew Morton , Minchan Kim Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky , Nitin Gupta , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Sergey Senozhatsky Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 0/8] introduce dynamic device creation/removal Message-ID: <20150416003026.GA2018@swordfish> References: <1425386990-6339-1-git-send-email-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> <20150415143717.3c94969fbaef635d7afae9eb@linux-foundation.org> <20150415234034.GB28993@blaptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150415234034.GB28993@blaptop> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, On (04/16/15 08:40), Minchan Kim wrote: > On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 02:37:17PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Tue, 3 Mar 2015 21:49:42 +0900 Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > This patchset introduces zram-control sysfs class, which has two sysfs > > > attrs: > > > - zram_add -- add a new specific (device_id) zram device > > > - zram_remove -- remove a specific (device_id) zram device > > > > This patchset and the "make automatic device_id generation possible" > > still appear to have quite a few unresolved issues. So I'm holding > > them out of the 4.1 merge window. > > There is no unresolved issue to me. Only one thing I suspect was the > feature user enforce new device id for dynamic device addition and > we finally decided to remove the function because there was no useful > usecase at this point. I'm not aware of any unresolved issues. am I missing something? > Sergey and other userland people agreed that > so Sergey sent a patch [zram: do not let user enforce new device dev_id] > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/3/6/427 > So, I'm happy with that. Acutally, I wanted to resend whole patchset > for dynamic device creation/remove patchset with corrected version > (ie, remove user enforce new device id) to avoid confusion but didn't > said it to Sergey. It was my bad. > > Sergey, Could you resend this patchset without user's enforce device id > function based on new -rc1? ok, agree. I'll re-submit later today. -ss > > > > Unfortunately these were the first-arriving zram patches, so the later > > ones required quite a bit of mangling. Hopefully I got it all right. > > > > This was all a bit disruptive. Please let's not leave major patchsets > > floating about in an incomplete/unresolved state for week after week? > > I will keep it in mind. > Thanks. > > -- > Kind regards, > Minchan Kim >