[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20130409125423.19592f11e44345df2bca6cfd@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 12:54:23 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Seth Jennings <sjenning@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad@...nok.org>,
Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>,
Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: remove compressed copy from zram in-memory
On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 10:02:31 +0900 Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org> wrote:
> > Also, what's up with the SWP_BLKDEV test? zram doesn't support
> > SWP_FILE? Why on earth not?
> >
> > Putting swap_slot_free_notify() into block_device_operations seems
> > rather wrong. It precludes zram-over-swapfiles for all time and means
> > that other subsystems cannot get notifications for swap slot freeing
> > for swapfile-backed swap.
>
> Zram is just pseudo-block device so anyone can format it with any FSes
> and swapon a file. In such case, he can't get a benefit from
> swap_slot_free_notify. But I think it's not a severe problem because
> there is no reason to use a file-swap on zram. If anyone want to use it,
> I'd like to know the reason. If it's reasonable, we have to rethink a
> wheel and it's another story, IMHO.
My point is that making the swap_slot_free_notify() callback a
blockdev-specific thing was restrictive. What happens if someone wants
to use it for swapfile-backed swap? This has nothing to do with zram.
--
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