On 9/12/06, Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> Linus, when I mentioned swap over network to you in Ottawa, you said it was
> a valid use case, that people actually do and want this. Can you agree with
> the approach taken in these patches?
Well, in all honesty, I don't think I really said "valid", but that I said
that some crazy people want to do it, and that we should try to allow them
their foibles.
So I'd be nervous to do any _guarantees_. I think that good VM policies
should make it be something that works in general (the dirty mapping
limits in particular), but I'd be a bit nervous about anybody taking it
_too_ seriously. Crazy people are still crazy, they just might be right
under certain reasonably-well-controlled circumstances.
(oops, forgot to cc: the list)
Personally, I'm a little unhappy with the added complexity here, I'm
not convinced that this extra feature is worth it. In particular,
adding to the address_space_operations, the block_device_operations,
and creating a new swap index/offset interface just for this seems
questionable. I feel like interface bloat should be reserved for
features that have widespread use and benefit.
Not that I'm opposed to this feature, just that I think this patch is
too invasive interface-wise.
NATE
-
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]
