Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:05:02 +1100 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [patch] make sysctl_overcommit_memory enumeration sensible |
| |
Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 08:01:10PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > >>Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote: >> >>>I see system admins often confused when they sysctl vm.overcommit_memory. >>>This patch makes overcommit_memory enumeration sensible. >>> >> >>What's the point? The current has been there for a long time, and >>is well documented. > > > Yes, the current is well documented and for a long time. But the design is > insane, no matter how well and how long it is documented. Users have to read > the document for *many times*. > > The new way is logical so it would let us "read once, remember always". > >
That's just not how it's done, full stop.
If it was really a big problem, you'd add a new sysctl with the new behaviour, put a warning printk in the kernel that says the old one is deprecated, wait for a year or so, then remove the old one.
But I suspect it simply doesn't matter that much in this case.
-- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
- 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/
| |