Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 12 Dec 2008 08:58:45 +0100 | From | Jens Axboe <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] block: Fix LSF default inconsistency |
| |
On Thu, Dec 11 2008, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > 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.
Me neither, lets ask the originator of the patch. Rik, why is unevictable lru an option?
-- Jens Axboe
| |