On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 1:06 PM Andrew Morton akpm@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 11:05:41 -0800 Mina Almasry almasrymina@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 3:19 PM Andrew Morton akpm@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 13:31:20 -0800 Mina Almasry almasrymina@google.com wrote:
These counters will track hugetlb reservations rather than hugetlb memory faulted in. This patch only adds the counter, following patches add the charging and uncharging of the counter.
We're still pretty thin on review here, but as it's v12 and Mike appears to be signed up to look at this work, I'll add them to -next to help move things forward.
Hi Andrew,
Since the patches were merged into -next there have been build fixes and test fixes and some review comments. Would you like me to submit *new* patches to address these, or would you like me to squash the fixes into my existing patch series and submit another iteration of the patch series?
What you did worked OK ;)
Please check the end result next time I release a kernel.
Thanks Andrew! Things definitely moved along after the patchseries got into -next :D
By my count I think all my patches outside of the tests patch have been acked or reviewed. When you have a chance I have a couple of questions:
1. For the non-tests patch, anything pending on those preventing eventual submission to linus's tree? 2. For the tests patch, I only have a Tested-by from Sandipan. Is that good enough? If the worst comes to worst and I don't get a review on that patch I would rather (if possible) that 'tests' patch can be dropped while I nag folks for a review, rather than block submission of the entire patch series. I ask because it's been out for review for some time and it's the one I got least discussion on so I'm not sure I'll have a review by the time it's needed.
Thanks again!