slab: initialize unused alien cache entry as NULL at alloc_alien_cache().
in [Kernel]
|
Prev: slab: initialize unused alien cache entry as NULL at alloc_alien_cache().
Next: [PATCH alt.2] af_packet: Don't use skb after dev_queue_xmit()
From: Haicheng Li on 6 Jan 2010 03:40 Pekka Enberg wrote: > I can find a trace of Andi acking the previous version of this patch > but I don't see an ACK from Christoph nor a revieved-by from Matt. Was > I not CC'd on those emails or what's going on here? > Pekka, Christoph said he will ack this patch if remove the change of MAX_NUMNODES (see below), so I add him directly as Acked-by in this revised patch. And also, I got review comments from Matt for v1 and changed the patch accordingly. Is it a violation of the rule? if so, I'm sorry, actually not quite clear with the rule. Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009, Haicheng Li wrote: > >> @@ -966,18 +966,16 @@ static void *alternate_node_alloc(struct kmem_cache *, >> gfp_t); >> static struct array_cache **alloc_alien_cache(int node, int limit, gfp_t gfp) >> { >> struct array_cache **ac_ptr; >> - int memsize = sizeof(void *) * nr_node_ids; >> + int memsize = sizeof(void *) * MAX_NUMNODES; >> int i; > > Remove this change and I will ack the patch. > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Haicheng Li on 6 Jan 2010 03:50 understood. thanks! Pekka Enberg wrote: > Hi, > > Haicheng Li wrote: >> Pekka Enberg wrote: >> > I can find a trace of Andi acking the previous version of this patch >> > but I don't see an ACK from Christoph nor a revieved-by from Matt. Was >> > I not CC'd on those emails or what's going on here? >> > >> >> Christoph said he will ack this patch if remove the change of >> MAX_NUMNODES (see below), >> so I add him directly as Acked-by in this revised patch. And also, I >> got review >> comments from Matt for v1 and changed the patch accordingly. >> >> Is it a violation of the rule? if so, I'm sorry, actually not quite >> clear with the rule. > > See Section 14 of Documentation/SubmittingPatches. You should never add > tags unless they came from the said person. The ACKs from Andi is fine, > the one from Christoph is borderline but OK and the one from Matt is > _not_ OK. > > I can fix those up but I'll wait from an explicit ACK from Christoph first. > > Pekka -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Pekka Enberg on 6 Jan 2010 03:50
Hi, Haicheng Li wrote: > Pekka Enberg wrote: > > I can find a trace of Andi acking the previous version of this patch > > but I don't see an ACK from Christoph nor a revieved-by from Matt. Was > > I not CC'd on those emails or what's going on here? > > > > Christoph said he will ack this patch if remove the change of > MAX_NUMNODES (see below), > so I add him directly as Acked-by in this revised patch. And also, I got > review > comments from Matt for v1 and changed the patch accordingly. > > Is it a violation of the rule? if so, I'm sorry, actually not quite > clear with the rule. See Section 14 of Documentation/SubmittingPatches. You should never add tags unless they came from the said person. The ACKs from Andi is fine, the one from Christoph is borderline but OK and the one from Matt is _not_ OK. I can fix those up but I'll wait from an explicit ACK from Christoph first. Pekka -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ |