Re: [PATCH] Document Linux Memory Policy - V2

[Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com>]

On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 12:58 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Lee Schermerhorn wrote:
> > Again, I refuse to bite...
> 
> Please include at least the two sides to it in your doc.

I'm trying not to make any judgmental statements one way or another in
the document.  I don't think it's appropriate there.  Rather, I'm trying
to describe the current behavior.  How well I'm succeeding at this is
open to debate, I guess.

> 
> There are numerous issues with memory policies and I think we are still 
> waiting for a solution that addresses these issues in a consistent way and 
> improves the overall cleanness of the implementation.

I think we need to get the in incremental steps.  

And, I think phrases like "consistent way" and "improves overall
cleanness" are very subjective.  Exchanges will be more constructive if
folks could stop asserting their own opinions as undisputed fact.  E.g.,
see:

	http://www.generalsemantics.org/about/about-gs2.htm

	especially the "Some Formulations..." section

or:
	http://www.generalsemantics.org/about/13-common.htm



Anyway, I'm about to post V3.  Have at it.

Later,
Lee

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>