On 2020-09-11 14:42, Randy Dunlap wrote:
On 9/11/20 2:37 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
I am by no means an authoritative CMA person but this behavior does
not seem acceptable, there is no doubt the existing one is sub-optimal
under specific circumstances, but an indefinite retry, as well as a
100ms sleep appear to be arbitrary at best. How about you introduce a
parameter that allows the tuning of the number of retries and/or delay
between retries?
Also:
You should send your patch to linux...@kvack.org -- that's where
most memory management type patches are reviewed.
You should also send your patch to someone who could actually merge
it into the kernel source tree -- assuming that's what you want to
happen.
Try scripts/get_mainttainer.pl on your patch to see what it says.
And if you are going to use a "cover letter" or "introductory email"
before
the actual patch, the second (patch(es)) should be sent chained to the
first email. git send-email should do this for you.
Hi Randy,
git send-email was not using the correct ID to generate a response to
the cover letter, and I'm not able to fathom why. This e-mail was
actually just sent out as a test to LKML as a test so I could figure out
how to resolve the issue, I wasn't actually expecting anyone to read
this. The actual e-mail, with the correct maintainer (Andrew Morton)
and mailing lists, as well as the summary of the discussion on the
patches so far, may be found here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/8/11/893
Thanks,
Chris.
--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora
Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
