|| ||Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-linux-foundation.org> |
|| ||Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer-AT-oracle.com> |
|| ||Re: [GIT PULL] mm: frontswap (for 3.2 window) |
|| ||Tue, 1 Nov 2011 14:43:09 -0700|
|| ||KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu-AT-jp.fujitsu.com>, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org>, linux-mm-AT-kvack.org, LKML
<linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org>, Konrad Wilk <konrad.wilk-AT-oracle.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy-AT-goop.org>, Seth Jennings
<sjenning-AT-linux.vnet.ibm.com>, ngupta-AT-vflare.org, levinsasha928-AT-gmail.com,
Chris Mason <chris.mason-AT-oracle.com>, JBeulich-AT-novell.com, Dave Hansen
<dave-AT-linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet-AT-lwn.net>, Neo Jia
|| ||Article, Thread
On Tue, 1 Nov 2011 08:25:38 -0700 (PDT)
Dan Magenheimer <email@example.com> wrote:
> OK, I will then coordinate with sfr to remove it from the linux-next
> tree when (if?) akpm puts the patchset into the -mm tree.
No, that's not necessary. The current process (you maintain git tree,
it gets included in -next, later gets pulled by Linus) is good. The
only reason I see for putting such code through -mm would be if there
were significant interactions with other core MM work.
It doesn't matter which route is taken, as long as the code is
appropriately reviewed and tested.
> since very few linux-mm experts had responded to previous postings
> of the frontswap patchset, I am glad to have a much wider audience
> to discuss it now because of the lkml git-pull request.
At kernel summit there was discussion and overall agreement that we've
been paying insufficient attention to the big-picture "should we
include this feature at all" issues. We resolved to look more
intensely and critically at new features with a view to deciding
whether their usefulness justified their maintenance burden. It seems
that you're our crash-test dummy ;) (Now I'm wondering how to get
"cgroups: add a task counter subsystem" put through the same wringer).
I will confess to and apologise for dropping the ball on cleancache and
frontswap. I was never really able to convince myself that it met the
(very vague) cost/benefit test, but nor was I able to present
convincing arguments that it failed that test. So I very badly went
into hiding, to wait and see what happened. What we needed all those
months ago was to have the discussion we're having now.
This is a difficult discussion and a difficult decision. But it is
important that we get it right. Thanks for you patience.
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to firstname.lastname@example.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"email@example.com"> firstname.lastname@example.org </a>
to post comments)