From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758524AbZEKWGS (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 May 2009 18:06:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755122AbZEKWGE (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 May 2009 18:06:04 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.33.17]:8018 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753730AbZEKWGC (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 May 2009 18:06:02 -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=xWs9GqHxNAw0X5nU5glQiVHDB6IkkRdlKof91ReUFYXaOFov+bQDofZMxXlqNBGR9 G+bhhKIlzr7bRCT96Ipng== Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 15:05:57 -0700 (PDT) From: David Rientjes X-X-Sender: rientjes@chino.kir.corp.google.com To: Greg KH cc: Andrew Morton , npiggin@suse.de, mel@csn.ul.ie, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, Christoph Lameter , dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com, san@android.com, arve@android.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch 05/11 -mmotm] oom: fix possible oom_dump_tasks NULL pointer In-Reply-To: <20090511214106.GB22040@suse.de> Message-ID: References: <20090511141138.3e8118ab.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090511214106.GB22040@suse.de> 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, 11 May 2009, Greg KH wrote: > > This was a source of confusion from me when I posted a smaller set earlier > > that made the same changes to the staging driver, and the only reason I > > sent the change here was because drivers/staging/android/lowmemorykiller.c > > is in Linus' tree. > > I have that series in my "to-apply" queue to get through this week. I > will handle them. > Great! > I think the original lowmemorykiller.c patches have no problem getting > into the tree. But, it seems that people are still disagreeing with the > core oom changes you have made, so those will probably take a few more > review cycles in order to work themselves out. > Andrew merged a fixed up version of oom-move-oom_adj-value-from-task_struct-to-mm_struct.patch to -mm so that it's not dependent on the earlier lowmemorykiller changes. I assume the merge conflicts will be handled by whoever pushes their changes last. > I would _really_ like to see the end goal to get this lowmemorykiller > code out of the staging tree, and I think that is what your goal here is > as well. Not really, my only real change to it was making sure it would compile when I moved ->oomkilladj from task_struct to mm_struct. In the course of that, I found a possible NULL pointer and coding style problems so I thought I'd fix them up as well. Then Arve posted a couple of patches he'd been sitting on, so I added them early on to my series so they'd all apply cleanly. > If, at the end of your series that happens, I think that would > be very good. > Arve, San, it seems like this driver is still being actively developed judging by the patches you sent me. Any ideas?