Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
But that's not my place to say, and I'm actually not arguing that high
order pagecache does not have uses (especially as a practical,
shorter-term solution which is unintrusive to filesystems).
So no, I don't think I'm really going against the basics of what we agreed
in Cambridge. But it sounds like it's still being billed as first-order
support right off the bat here.
Well its seems that we have different interpretations of what was agreed
on. My understanding was that the large blocksize patchset was okay
provided that I supply an acceptable mmap implementation and put a
warning in.
I think all we agreed on was that both patches needed significant work
and would need to be judged after they were completed ;-)
There was talk of putting Christoph's approach in more-or-less as-is
as a very specialized and limited application ... but I don't think
we concluded anything for the more general and long-term case apart
from "this is hard" ;-)
M.
-
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]
