[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <75efb251-7a5e-4aca-91e2-f85627090363@default>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 14:49:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Konrad Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Seth Jennings <sjenning@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, ngupta@...are.org,
levinsasha928@...il.com, Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
JBeulich@...ell.com, Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Neo Jia <cyclonusj@...il.com>
Subject: RE: [GIT PULL] mm: frontswap (for 3.2 window)
> From: Christoph Hellwig [mailto:hch@...radead.org]
> Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 3:12 PM
> To: David Rientjes
> Cc: Dan Magenheimer; Linus Torvalds; linux-mm@...ck.org; LKML; Andrew Morton; Konrad Wilk; Jeremy
> Fitzhardinge; Seth Jennings; ngupta@...are.org; levinsasha928@...il.com; Chris Mason;
> JBeulich@...ell.com; Dave Hansen; Jonathan Corbet; Neo Jia
> Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] mm: frontswap (for 3.2 window)
>
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 01:18:40PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> > Isn't this something that should go through the -mm tree?
>
> It should have. It should also have ACKs from the core VM developers,
> and at least the few I talked to about it really didn't seem to like it.
Yes, it would have been nice to have it go through the -mm tree.
But, *sigh*, I guess it will be up to Linus again to decide if
"didn't seem to like it" is sufficient to block functionality
that has found use by a number of in-kernel users and by
real shipping products... and continues to grow in usefulness.
If Linux truly subscribes to the "code rules" mantra, no core
VM developer has proposed anything -- even a design, let alone
working code -- that comes close to providing the functionality
and flexibility that frontswap (and cleancache) provides, and
frontswap provides it with a very VERY small impact on existing
kernel code AND has been posted and working for 2+ years.
(And during that 2+ years, excellent feedback has improved the
"kernel-ness" of the code, but NONE of the core frontswap
design/hooks have changed... because frontswap _just works_!)
Perhaps other frontswap users would be so kind as to reply
on this thread with their opinions...
Dan
--
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