On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 03:38:39PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
> On 06/29/2012 02:25 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 13:01:23 +0400
> > Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >
> > OK, that all sounds convincing ;) Please summarise and capture this
> > discussion in the [patch 0/n] changelog so we (or others) don't have to
> > go through this all again. And let's remember this in the next
> > patchset!
>
> Thanks, will surely do.
>
> >> Last, but not least, note that it is totally within my interests to
> >> merge the slab tracking as fast as we can. it'll be a matter of going
> >> back to it, and agreeing in the final form.
> >
> > Yes, I'd very much like to have the whole slab implementation in a
> > reasonably mature state before proceeding too far with this base
> > patchset.
>
> Does that means that you want to merge them together? I am more than
> happy to post the slab part again ontop of that to have people reviewing it.
>
> But if possible, I believe that merging this part first would help us to
> split up testing in a beneficial way, in the sense that if it breaks, we
> know at least in which part it is. Not to mention, of course, that
> reviewers will have an easier time reviewing it as two pieces.
Definetly yeah. This makes the review easier for this tricky chunk.
OpenVZ Forum
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
