On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 19:35 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 14:09 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> >>shrink_zone and do_shrink_zone don't really say any more to me than
> >>shrink_zone and shrink_cache.
> >
> >
> > I know not everybody believes in a plugable reclaim policy, but that is
> > what I'm building. And from that POV I'd rather not see the
> > active/inactive names get used here.
> >
>
> active/inactive is what we have now. If you manage to get a pluggable
> reclaim policy merged then I assure you, renaming these yet again will
> be the least of your worries :)
True indeed.
> > My vote goes to Coywolf's suggestion.
> >
>
> What was that?
Hmm, seems like I shouldn't read email before waking up, apparently I
got the quoting levels mixed up.
Anyway, this one:
>> try_to_free_pages
>> ->shrink_zones(struct zone **zones, ..)
>> ->shrink_zone(struct zone *, ...)
>> ->do_shrink_zone(struct zone *, ...)
>> ->shrink_page_list(struct list_head *, ...)
-
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]