From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FD70C47077 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 04:28:26 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=chromium.org header.i=@chromium.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=google header.b=g1BjxNAm; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4TDbbr6grxz3c3y for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 15:28:24 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=chromium.org header.i=@chromium.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=google header.b=g1BjxNAm; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=chromium.org (client-ip=2001:4860:4864:20::2e; helo=mail-oa1-x2e.google.com; envelope-from=senozhatsky@chromium.org; receiver=lists.ozlabs.org) Received: from mail-oa1-x2e.google.com (mail-oa1-x2e.google.com [IPv6:2001:4860:4864:20::2e]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4TDbZx1389z3039 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 15:27:35 +1100 (AEDT) Received: by mail-oa1-x2e.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-20503dc09adso6410264fac.2 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2024 20:27:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; t=1705379247; x=1705984047; darn=lists.ozlabs.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=IqjuXL8OqrrC9M320WLttRPXjOmwFto71dtJpm4tHv4=; b=g1BjxNAmoVr02pFipZBcPkcTDPiqyAJt7/bKKhS+qP0Kltf9XOfkjMSjYVzrnx3BdM oKCsIMzAecyShXprP6gJEJwhRNziZjiWvs/JUkX/0eR1cP2fEzlxq5slhLa38sDXfJSO GfmN6hM0RANg0rVQpKFYzep2gqwbW3CJ9m/5o= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1705379247; x=1705984047; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=IqjuXL8OqrrC9M320WLttRPXjOmwFto71dtJpm4tHv4=; b=cMxLK8d1yYXSzJAndivtoK7XIadXEWuevFe88GM8xvQKywRempv8Kxqs0IpjgBWCes +8SKC0/5E5UwOjje2adE9BH2+rBBMp0MdGCK6YXjXCq7yU4KzoDV6+HK08C/wTUTHsM4 HPZWFqngTwAqE7mg4klgpSWqmYQ/qh64qrTJ1BjCcoK7H9xJ39CD5W/ViO8bZFa3hWzy Fvl6FVkiXU86KWyoPm8ezNO0fw+95rw2A787GsmiwRHp1m01NbROzQ5AwiHCR3i4rKHY jVfKrQDA3APgDXTnyuxFZbLCh87ekRx4jGNNam7rYeiv9V/L6Ws5ucHzHWpDFPat6DAQ FSrA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyaYSI08eRpMisP8zjPqIQbOeFxTMvWb2cHZwsXAM9JQf/TY9h0 AVuOmmXHgbjkplrj2O7J28YTcfG1opm6 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEKf3oZ1OyldxkJrYtd3QFGyBqZgw+BXzpyShS8QFhIlO8rlQgC9SE1dtT9pO2Z8HvTr+U7SA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6871:e007:b0:205:ee9e:f39f with SMTP id by7-20020a056871e00700b00205ee9ef39fmr9987896oac.6.1705379247190; Mon, 15 Jan 2024 20:27:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from google.com ([2401:fa00:8f:203:e69e:52c4:fc3f:2b28]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e3-20020a636903000000b005aa800c149bsm9218065pgc.39.2024.01.15.20.27.23 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 15 Jan 2024 20:27:26 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2024 13:27:21 +0900 From: Sergey Senozhatsky To: Vitaly Wool , Yosry Ahmed Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: z3fold: rename CONFIG_Z3FOLD to CONFIG_Z3FOLD_DEPRECATED Message-ID: <20240116042721.GA1983292@google.com> References: <20240112193103.3798287-1-yosryahmed@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Miaohe Lin , Nhat Pham , Huacai Chen , Nicholas Piggin , "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , linux-mm@kvack.org, loongarch@lists.linux.dev, Johannes Weiner , "Naveen N. Rao" , Andrew Morton , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, WANG Xuerui Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On (24/01/15 08:47), Yosry Ahmed wrote: > > At this point I NACK this patch. We're about to submit an allocator > > which is clearly better that z3fold and is faster that zsmalloc in > > most cases and that submission will mark z3fold as deprecated. But for > > now this move is premature. > > I think unless there are current users of z3fold that cannot use > zsmalloc, the introduction of a new allocator should be irrelevant to > deprecating z3fold. Do you know of such users? Can you explain why > zsmalloc is not usable for them? I second this. I believe "do we know whether z3fold has users" is a legit question that means no offense.