lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Dec]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-12-12 20:29    [W:0.422 / U:0.232 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site