From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1945929AbXEAUht (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 May 2007 16:37:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1945918AbXEAUhY (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 May 2007 16:37:24 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([65.172.181.25]:32856 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1423671AbXEAUhK (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 May 2007 16:37:10 -0400 Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 13:36:18 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Hugh Dickins Cc: Christoph Lameter , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: 2.6.22 -mm merge plans: slub Message-Id: <20070501133618.93793687.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20070430162007.ad46e153.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070501125559.9ab42896.akpm@linux-foundation.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.7 (GTK+ 2.8.6; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 1 May 2007 21:19:09 +0100 (BST) Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Tue, 1 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Tue, 1 May 2007 19:10:29 +0100 (BST) > > Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > > > > Most of the rest of slub. Will merge it all. > > > > > > Merging slub already? I'm surprised. > > > > My thinking here is "does slub have a future". > > I think the answer is "yes", > > I think I agree with that, > though it's a judgement I'd leave to you and others. > > > so we're reasonably safe getting it into mainline for the finishing > > work. The kernel.org kernel will still default to slab. > > > > Does that sound wrong? > > Yes, to me it does. If it could be defaulted to on throughout the > -rcs, on every architecture, then I'd say that's "finishing work"; > and we'd be safe knowing we could go back to slab in a hurry if > needed. But it hasn't reached that stage yet, I think. > Given the current state and the current rate of development I'd expect slub to have reached the level of completion which you're describing around -rc2 or -rc3. I think we'd be pretty safe making that assumption. This is a bit unusual but there is of course some self-interest here: the patch dependencies are getting awful and having this hanging around out-of-tree will make 2.6.23 development harder for everyone. So on balance, given that we _do_ expect slub to have a future, I'm inclined to crash ahead with it. The worst that can happen will be a later rm mm/slub.c which would be pretty simple to do. otoh I could do some frantic patch mangling and make it easier to carry slub out-of-tree, but do we gain much from that?