Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
It is reasonable to expect some help from maintainers, but I notice you
didn't even CC the SLOB maintainer in the patch to remove SLOB! So maybe
if you tried working a bit closer with him you could get better results?
The maintainers last patch to SLOB was the initial submission of the
allocator. Then he acked subsequent patches. Most of the modifications to
SLOB are my work. Attempts to talk to the maintainer result in inventive
explanations why SLOB does not have to conform to kernel standards. There
is no reasonable expectation that this will change.
Well I really don't want to mediate, but even in the case of a
completely MIA maintainer, that isn't really a good idea to throw out
working and useful code.
But last time this discussion came up, IIRC you ended up handwaving
about all the ways in which SLOB was broken but didn't actually come
up with any real problems. Matt seemed willing to add those counters
or whatever it was if/when doing so solved a real problem. And remember
that SLOB doesn't have to have feature parity with SLUB, so long as it
implements the slab API such that the kernel *works*.
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
-
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]
