[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20081211204006.3312.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 20:44:57 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: Fix LSF default inconsistency
> On Thu, Dec 11 2008, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > > No objection from me, getting rid of configuration options almost
> > > > always gets my vote :)
> > >
> > > Yeah, mine too. One recent addition was CONFIG_UNEVICTABLE_LRU - why on
> > > earth is that an option?!
> >
> > As far as I know, CONFIG_UNEVICTABLE_LRU depend on CONFIG_MMU
> > because any unevictable lru developer don't have nommu machine ;)
> >
> > I expect that nobody of mmu user don't turn off unevictable lru feature.
>
> Perhaps I didn't frase the question correctly. My question is, why is it
> a visible option? Does it make ANY sense to turn off
> CONFIG_UNEVICTABLE_LRU?
very difficult question...
As far as I know, CONFIG_UNEVICTABLE_LRU doesn't have any bad side effect.
So, I expect we can remove UNEVICTABLE_LRU Kconfig option in the future.
but it is _not_ VM developr consensus. just my thinking.
--
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