From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933667Ab3GDIVN (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Jul 2013 04:21:13 -0400 Received: from mail-we0-f178.google.com ([74.125.82.178]:48921 "EHLO mail-we0-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932990Ab3GDIVK (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Jul 2013 04:21:10 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: sedat.dilek@gmail.com In-Reply-To: References: <20130704160652.4f76f0ee43877a6e726d6c8b@canb.auug.org.au> Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2013 10:21:09 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Jul 4 From: Sedat Dilek To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote: > On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Changes since 20130703: >> >> The net-next tree lost its build failure. >> >> The akpm tree gained a conflict against the kbuild tree and lost lots of >> patches that turned up elsewhere. >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > Just FYI: > People building with "CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM=n" (still) need an extra patch > pending in mmots-tree [1]. > ( Unfortunately, it does not cleanly apply against next-20130704. ) > I have compared both mm/memcontrol.c files from next-20130703/next-20130704 - they are identical. These hunks... [ From Li Zefan ] @@ -6332,8 +6341,7 @@ static void mem_cgroup_css_free(struct cgroup *cont) { struct mem_cgroup *memcg = mem_cgroup_from_cont(cont); - mem_cgroup_sockets_destroy(memcg); - + memcg_destroy_kmem(memcg); __mem_cgroup_free(memcg); } [ From mmots ] @@ -6399,8 +6408,7 @@ static void mem_cgroup_css_free(struct c { struct mem_cgroup *memcg = mem_cgroup_from_cont(cont); - mem_cgroup_sockets_destroy(memcg); - + memcg_destroy_kmem(memcg); mem_cgroup_put(memcg); } ...seems to differ. In both mentioned -next releases there exist no mem_cgroup_put() in mm/memcontrol.c. So the hunk in mmots seems to be wrong in my eyes. Andrew? ^^^ - Sedat - > - Sedat - > > [1] http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmots/broken-out/memcg-use-css_get-put-when-charging-uncharging-kmem-fix-fix.patch