lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Dec]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] block: Fix LSF default inconsistency
Date
> On Thu, Dec 11 2008, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > > No objection from me, getting rid of configuration options almost
> > > > always gets my vote :)
> > >
> > > Yeah, mine too. One recent addition was CONFIG_UNEVICTABLE_LRU - why on
> > > earth is that an option?!
> >
> > As far as I know, CONFIG_UNEVICTABLE_LRU depend on CONFIG_MMU
> > because any unevictable lru developer don't have nommu machine ;)
> >
> > I expect that nobody of mmu user don't turn off unevictable lru feature.
>
> Perhaps I didn't frase the question correctly. My question is, why is it
> a visible option? Does it make ANY sense to turn off
> CONFIG_UNEVICTABLE_LRU?

very difficult question...

As far as I know, CONFIG_UNEVICTABLE_LRU doesn't have any bad side effect.
So, I expect we can remove UNEVICTABLE_LRU Kconfig option in the future.

but it is _not_ VM developr consensus. just my thinking.





\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-12-11 12:47    [W:0.106 / U:0.540 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site