[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1213215827.6436.61.camel@lts-notebook>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 16:23:47 -0400
From: Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm 11/24] pageflag helpers for configed-out flags
On Wed, 2008-06-11 at 16:08 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:01:45 -0700
> Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:42:25 -0400
> > Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Define proper false/noop inline functions for noreclaim page
> > > flags when !defined(CONFIG_NORECLAIM_LRU)
> >
> > I changed that to CONFIG_UNEVICTABLE_LRU.
> >
> > Did we agree that the presence of this config variable is undesirable?
> > If so, what's involved in making it go away?
>
> We agreed that having CONFIG_NORELAIM_SWAP was bad, that one went away.
That was CONFIG_NORELAIM_MLOCK, right?
Which reminds me: we'll need to change the description of
CONFIG_UNEVICTABLE_LRU to state that it uses 2 page flags if, indeed, we
want to say anything about page flag usage in the Kconfig help text.
Not sure that's helpful.
>
> As for CONFIG_UNEVICTABLE_LRU, I believe we will want to at least give
> embedded people the option to compile without all that code, similar
> to CONFIG_SWAP.
Agree.
Lee
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists