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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
