From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jiri Kosina Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm/mincore: provide mapped status when cached status is not allowed Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 14:09:03 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: References: <20190130124420.1834-1-vbabka@suse.cz> <20190130124420.1834-4-vbabka@suse.cz> <20190131100907.GS18811@dhcp22.suse.cz> <99ee4d3e-aeb2-0104-22be-b028938e7f88@suse.cz> <20190212063643.GL15609@dhcp22.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20190212063643.GL15609@dhcp22.suse.cz> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Michal Hocko Cc: Vlastimil Babka , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , Greg KH , Jann Horn , Dominique Martinet , Andy Lutomirski , Dave Chinner , Kevin Easton , Matthew Wilcox , Cyril Hrubis , Tejun Heo , "Kirill A . Shutemov" , Daniel Gruss , Josh Snyder List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 12 Feb 2019, Michal Hocko wrote: > I would go with patch 1 for 5.1. Patches 2 still sounds controversial or > incomplete to me. Is it because of the disagreement what 'non-blocking' really means, or do you see something else missing? Merging patch just patch 1 withouth patch 2 is probably sort of useless excercise, unfortunately. Thanks, -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs