Re: [git pull] cpus4096 tree, part 3

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de> wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 11:37:23PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > What happened to Nick's cleanup patch to do_page_fault (a month or two 
> > > ago? I complained about some of the issues in his first version and 
> > > asked for some further cleanups, but I think that whole discussion ended 
> > > with him saying "I am going to add those changes that you suggested (in 
> > > fact, I already have)".
> > > 
> > > And then I didn't see anything further. Maybe I just missed the end 
> > > result. Or maybe we have it in some -mm branch or something?
> > 
> > they would have been in tip/x86/mm and would be upstream now had Nick 
> > re-sent a v2 series but that never happened. I think they might have 
> > fallen victim to a serious attention deficit caused by the SLQB patch ;-)
> 
> Well, I already added Linus's suggestions but didn't submit it because 
> there was a bit of work going on in that file as far as I could see, 
> both in the x86 tree and in -mm:
> 
> (http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.28-rc2/2.6.28-rc2-mm1/broken-out/mm-invoke-oom-killer-from-page-fault.patch)
> 
> It isn't a big deal to resolve either way, but I don't want to make 
> Andrew's life harder.
> 
> [Yes OK now I'm the guilty one of pushing in an x86 patch not via the 
> x86 tree ;) This one is easy to break in pieces, but I didn't want to 
> create a dependency between the trees]

That's OK, and the oom-killer patch impact on x86 was incidental, so it 
was correct to push it via -mm IMO.

Now that the bits that went in via Andrew's tree upstream, there's a 
handful of new conflicts in the patch - so would you mind to (re-)send a 
merged up patch against latest -git?

	Ingo