Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 5 Jun 2012 10:47:18 +0300 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/5] Some vmevent fixes... | From | Pekka Enberg <> |
| |
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 11:05 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com> wrote: >> Note that 1) and 2) are not problems per se, it's just implementation >> details, easy stuff. Vmevent is basically an ABI/API, and I didn't >> hear anybody who would object to vmevent ABI idea itself. More than >> this, nobody stop us from implementing in-kernel vmevent API, and >> make Android Lowmemory killer use it, if we want to. > > I never agree "it's mere ABI" discussion. Until the implementation is ugly, > I never agree the ABI even if syscall interface is very clean.
I don't know what discussion you are talking about.
I also don't agree that something should be merged just because the ABI is clean. The implementation must also make sense. I don't see how we disagree here at all.
| |