Re: 2.6.18-rc1

Re: 2.6.18-rc1

[Con Kolivas]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 636 bytes --]

I see the merge window closed and swap prefetch got bypassed again. I'd like 
to believe it was an oversight but far more likely that Andrew remains 
undecided about whether it should go in or not.

No bug reports have come from it in 6 months, the code has remained unchanged 
for 3 months, it is as unobtrusive as a driver that is not compiled in 
when !CONFIGed and there are numerous reports from satisfied users (even ones 
that made it to the scary grounds of lkml). The only thing that happens is 
Nick keeps threatening to review it over and over and over and....

I'm not sure what else needs to happen?

-- 
-ck

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: 2.6.18-rc1

[Nick Piggin]

Con Kolivas wrote:
> I see the merge window closed and swap prefetch got bypassed again. I'd like 
> to believe it was an oversight but far more likely that Andrew remains 
> undecided about whether it should go in or not.
> 
> No bug reports have come from it in 6 months, the code has remained unchanged 
> for 3 months, it is as unobtrusive as a driver that is not compiled in 
> when !CONFIGed and there are numerous reports from satisfied users (even ones 
> that made it to the scary grounds of lkml). The only thing that happens is 
> Nick keeps threatening to review it over and over and over and....

I was going to review it again, but I noticed it has still has comments
(from Hugh and I, I believe) which still haven't been implemented. Like
duplicating most of read_swap_cache_async. I thought you might have some
improvements on the way, so I hadn't bothered yet.

But... excuse me? I *threaten* to review it? I volunteered to review it a
couple of times and found several problems. But OK if you take that as a
threat, then I won't review it.

And I haven't seen any numbers to show it even works in ideal conditions
after I told you how to fix the watermark code, let alone the real world
situations in which it is supposed to help (not that that seems to be a
showstopper to merging stuff like this, though)

I personally won't advocate it, but I wouldn't be upset if it goes
in... it isn't entirely unobtrusive: it is pretty close to the core mm,
and will have to be maintained as such. Mainly in Hugh's area, so he
would have a final veto there.

> 
> I'm not sure what else needs to happen?
> 

Probably if nothing happens, it sounds like Andrew will merge it
eventually.

-- 
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 

Re: [ck] Re: 2.6.18-rc1

[jos poortvliet]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1224 bytes --]

Op maandag 10 juli 2006 05:08, schreef Con Kolivas:
> I see the merge window closed and swap prefetch got bypassed again. I'd
> like to believe it was an oversight but far more likely that Andrew remains
> undecided about whether it should go in or not.
>
> No bug reports have come from it in 6 months, the code has remained
> unchanged for 3 months, it is as unobtrusive as a driver that is not
> compiled in when !CONFIGed and there are numerous reports from satisfied
> users (even ones that made it to the scary grounds of lkml). The only thing
> that happens is Nick keeps threatening to review it over and over and over
> and....
>
> I'm not sure what else needs to happen?

That's what I wonder about. What exactly are the criteria for getting 
something in the kernel? People who want it, and someone willing to maintain 
it are part of it, I guess... Good design? The Right Thing, The Right Way?

Now I wouldn't say Andrew is 'nobody', and if he objects, that's something for 
sure. But he doesn't even object (do you?).

I like swap prefetch, and it works for me. I can patch it in myself, so its 
not all that important to me. And its just a small thing. But many small 
things...

Jos

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 191 bytes --]