Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 7 Jan 2004 14:10:56 -0600 | From | Matt Mackall <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.1-rc1-tiny2 |
| |
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:27:33AM -0800, Mitchell Blank Jr wrote: > Matt Mackall wrote: > > When I merge > > CONFIG_BLOCK, it'll be more generally useful. > > Maybe it would make more sense to have CONFIG_MEMPOOL=n just remove > the mempool API entirely and have it imply CONFIG_BLOCK=n, CONFIG_NFS_FS=n, > and CONFIG_NFSD=n? Just a thought.
NFS is a good example of why the guarantees of mempool are being overstated - it still needs to allocate SKBs to make progress and preallocating a pool for other data structures can make that fail where it otherwise might not. The pool size for NFS (32) is also completely arbitrary as far as I can tell.
> It seems like a reasonalbe thing to omit for some tiny configs that don't > need it, but if the API is provided it should probably work as expected.
The API _does_ work. It was a best effort with buffering before, it's a best effort without buffering now.
-- Matt Mackall : http://www.selenic.com : Linux development and consulting - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |