From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751814AbeFEK2w (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jun 2018 06:28:52 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:56117 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751296AbeFEK2v (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jun 2018 06:28:51 -0400 Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 12:28:49 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Roman Gushchin Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, kernel-team@fb.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Johannes Weiner , Vladimir Davydov , Greg Thelen , Tejun Heo , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: don't skip memory guarantee calculations Message-ID: <20180605102849.GZ19202@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20180522132528.23769-1-guro@fb.com> <20180522132528.23769-2-guro@fb.com> <20180604122953.GN19202@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180604162259.GA3404@castle> <20180605090349.GW19202@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180605101544.GB5464@castle> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180605101544.GB5464@castle> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.5 (2018-04-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue 05-06-18 11:15:45, Roman Gushchin wrote: > On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 11:03:49AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 04-06-18 17:23:06, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > [...] > > > I'm happy to discuss any concrete issues/concerns, but I really see > > > no reasons to drop it from the mm tree now and start the discussion > > > from scratch. > > > > I do not think this is ready for the current merge window. Sorry! I > > would really prefer to see the whole thing in one series to have a > > better picture. > > Please, provide any specific reason for that. I appreciate your opinion, > but *I think* it's not an argument, seriously. Seeing two follow up fixes close to the merge window just speaks for itself. Besides that there is not need to rush this now. > We've discussed the patchset back to March and I made several iterations > based on the received feedback. Later we had a separate discussion with Greg, > who proposed an alternative solution, which, unfortunately, had some serious > shortcomings. And, as I remember, some time ago we've discussed memory.min > with you. > And now you want to start from scratch without providing any reason. > I find it counter-productive, sorry. I am sorry I couldn't give it more time, but this release cycle was even crazier than usual. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs