[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0809250035030.21674@blonde.site>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 00:43:37 +0100 (BST)
From: Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
cc: Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] mm: tiny-shmem fix lor, mmap_sem vs i_mutex
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, David Howells wrote:
> Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com> wrote:
>
> > If we're hell-bent on #ifdefs throughout mm/shmem.c, I wouldn't
> > mind scattering some CONFIG_SWAPs in there too, would cut out
> > lots of overhead when swap unconfigured. But again, how ugly?
>
> That might be necessary: NOMMU doesn't support swap.
Matt would be dealing with that aspect in his unification: SHMEM
depends on MMU, so !MMU gives you TINY_SHMEM - I'm sure he wouldn't
have any of the SWAP stuff in the TINY_SHMEM part of his unification.
But there's still value in adding CONFIG_SWAPs too (if the #ifdefs
were tolerable, by no means clear).
Hugh
--
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