From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753167AbbIQB3Y (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:29:24 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f48.google.com ([209.85.220.48]:33804 "EHLO mail-pa0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752825AbbIQB3X (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:29:23 -0400 Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 10:30:07 +0900 From: Sergey Senozhatsky To: Vitaly Wool Cc: ddstreet@ieee.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, minchan@kernel.org, sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] prepare zbud to be used by zram as underlying allocator Message-ID: <20150917013007.GB421@swordfish> References: <20150916134857.e4a71f601a1f68cfa16cb361@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150916134857.e4a71f601a1f68cfa16cb361@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On (09/16/15 13:48), Vitaly Wool wrote: > as a follow-up to my previous patchset, I decided to first prepare > zbud/zpool related patches and then have some testing rounds and > performance measurements for zram running over both, and come up > with improved/verified zram/zpool patches then. Hi, just a side note, I'm afraid this is not how it works. numbers go first, to justify the patch set. -ss > > So for now, here comes the zbud/zpool part.