On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Ethan Solomita wrote: > I looked over it at one point. Most of the code doesn't conflict, but I > believe that the code path which calculates the dirty limits will need > some merging. Doable but non-trivial. > -- Ethan I hope you will keep on updating the patchset and posting it against current mm? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [RFC 1/7] cpuset write dirty map
- From: Ethan Solomita <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC 1/7] cpuset write dirty map
- References:
- [RFC 1/7] cpuset write dirty map
- From: Ethan Solomita <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC 1/7] cpuset write dirty map
- From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC 1/7] cpuset write dirty map
- From: Ethan Solomita <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC 1/7] cpuset write dirty map
- From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC 1/7] cpuset write dirty map
- From: Ethan Solomita <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC 1/7] cpuset write dirty map
- From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC 1/7] cpuset write dirty map
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC 1/7] cpuset write dirty map
- From: Ethan Solomita <[email protected]>
- [RFC 1/7] cpuset write dirty map
- Prev by Date: Re: [AppArmor 00/44] AppArmor security module overview
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] touchscreen support for collie (sharp zaurus sl-5500)
- Previous by thread: Re: [RFC 1/7] cpuset write dirty map
- Next by thread: Re: [RFC 1/7] cpuset write dirty map
- Index(es):
 |