[lkml]   [2011]   [Jan]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRE: Ping? RE: [GIT PULL] mm/vfs/fs:cleancache for 2.6.37 merge window
    > On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:37:47 -0700 (PDT) Dan Magenheimer
    > <> wrote:
    > > Ping? I hope you are still considering this. If not or if
    > > there are any questions I can answer, please let me know.
    > What's happened here is that the patchset has gone through its
    > iterations and a few people have commented and then after a while,
    > nobody had anything to say about the code so nobody said anything more.
    > But silence doesn't mean acceptance - it just means that nobody had
    > anything to say.
    > I think I looked at the earlier iterations, tried to understand the
    > point behind it all, made a few code suggestions and eventually tuned
    > out. At that time (and hence at this time) I just cannot explain to
    > myself why we would want to merge this code.
    > All new code is a cost/benefit decision. The costs are pretty well
    > known: larger codebase, more code for us and our "customers" to
    > maintain and support, etc. That the code pokes around in vfs and
    > various filesystems does increase those costs a little.
    > But the extent of the benefits to our users aren't obvious to me. The
    > coe is still xen-specific, I believe? If so, that immediately reduces
    > the benefit side by a large amount simply because of the reduced
    > audience.
    > We did spend some time trying to get this wired up to zram so that the
    > feature would be potentially useful to *all* users, thereby setting the
    > usefulness multiplier back to 1.0. But I don't recall that anything
    > came of this?
    > I also don't know how useful the code is to its intended
    > micro-audience: xen users!
    > So can we please revisit all this from the top level? Jeremy, your
    > input would be valuable. Christoph, I recall that you had technical
    > objections - can you please repeat those?
    > It's the best I can do to kick this along, sorry.

    Hi Andrew (and Linus) --

    Time to re-open this conversation (for 2.6.39 merge window)?

    Assuming GregKH approves kztmem as a staging driver, it should
    now set "the usefulness multiplier back to 1.0". Kztmem
    is a superset of Nitin's zcache and zram but more dynamic
    and is completely independent of Xen and virtualization.

    See kztmem overview:

    And I believe Christoph's technical objections have all been
    resolved. See longer version of previous reply here:

    So please reconsider cleancache!


    P.S. Christoph, apologies, I see I didn't have you on the dist list
    for the kztmem patch.

     \ /
      Last update: 2011-01-19 17:45    [W:0.046 / U:5.464 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site