From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757446AbZEDWfa (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2009 18:35:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753618AbZEDWfS (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2009 18:35:18 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.33.17]:54932 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753192AbZEDWfQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2009 18:35:16 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=date:from:x-x-sender:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id: references:user-agent:mime-version:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=wN+nPj3j4/slTCsGt/F491PhNZscMey0sfYf+Mx+PMWMacXFDLiB7bcYx4oWh2WN+ ajVhUtkphQ7I2M8G3PWNg== Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 15:35:08 -0700 (PDT) From: David Rientjes X-X-Sender: rientjes@chino.kir.corp.google.com To: Greg KH cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Arve_Hj=C3=B8nnev=C3=A5g?= , Andrew Morton , Nick Piggin , San Mehat , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Greg KH Subject: Re: [patch 1/5] oom: cleanup android low memory killer In-Reply-To: <20090504220905.GA29402@kroah.com> Message-ID: References: <20090504220905.GA29402@kroah.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-System-Of-Record: true Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 4 May 2009, Greg KH wrote: > Are these the patches already in my tree? > > If so, David, just respin your patches against the linux-next tree and > resend them, that should be sufficient. > This patch in the series is really more of a convenience than anything else since it doesn't change anything functionally. I had to modify the lowmemorykiller later because there's a potential for a NULL pointer from dereferencing p->mm without holding task_lock(p) and also because I moved oomkilladj from struct task_struct to struct mm_struct. The entire patchset is really based on the move of p->oomkilladj since it allows us to prevent an oom killer livelock when killing a task that shares memory with an OOM_DISABLE task. That change obviously has to go through Andrew but lowmemorykiller.c must be also be changed accordingly. I'd be fine with dropping my lowmemorykiller changes if they'd like to fix this up themselves. Otherwise, I need to know the path to which these get into the kernel. > If not, Arve, can you send me your patches first? > > David, in the future, can you cc: me anything under drivers/staging/ so > that I know to pick the patches up? > Sure.