On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 11:31:17 -0700 Nhat Pham nphamcs@gmail.com wrote:
There are parts of the code that I would feel more comfortable if someone took a look at (which I mentioned in individual patches). So unless this happens in the next few days I wouldn't say so.
I'm not super familiar with the other series. How big is the dependency? Looks like it's just a small part in the swapcache code right?
If this is the case, I feel like the best course of action is to rebase the mempolicy patch series on top of mm-unstable, and resolve this merge conflict.
OK, thanks.
Hugh, do you have time to look at rebasing on the mm-stable which I pushed out 15 minutes ago?
I will then send out v4 of the zswap shrinker, rebased on top of the mempolicy patch series.
If this is not the case, one thing we can do is:
a) Fix bugs (there's one kernel test robot it seems) b) Fix user-visible details (writeback counter for e.g)
and just merge the series for now. FWIW, this is an optional feature and disabled by default. So performance optimization and aesthetics change (list_lru_add() renaming etc.) can wait.
We can push out v4 by the end of today and early tomorrow if all goes well. Then everyone can review and comment on it.