linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] block: Fix LSF default inconsistency

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:26:24 +0000 (GMT)
From:	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
To:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
cc:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.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 Fri, 12 Dec 2008, Rik van Riel wrote:
> 
> keeping CONFIG_UNEVICTABLE_LRU may be a good idea after all.

Do you mean, keeping the CONFIG_UNEVICTABLE_LRU codepath even
when CONFIG_SWAP=n is a good idea?  Or do you see a reason we
actually still need CONFIG_UNEVICTABLE_LRU as an option?

It does add about 2.6k to kernel text (YMMV), is saving that
worth the extra config option?  For others to vote, really.

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/