Re: [PATCH] block: Fix LSF default inconsistency

[Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>]

On Thu, Dec 11 2008, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 11 2008, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > > > No objection from me, getting rid of configuration options almost
> > > > > always gets my vote :)
> > > > 
> > > > Yeah, mine too. One recent addition was CONFIG_UNEVICTABLE_LRU - why on
> > > > earth is that an option?!
> > > 
> > > As far as I know, CONFIG_UNEVICTABLE_LRU depend on CONFIG_MMU
> > > because any unevictable lru developer don't have nommu machine ;)
> > > 
> > > I expect that nobody of mmu user don't turn off unevictable lru feature.
> > 
> > Perhaps I didn't frase the question correctly. My question is, why is it
> > a visible option? Does it make ANY sense to turn off
> > CONFIG_UNEVICTABLE_LRU?
> 
> very difficult question...
> 
> As far as I know, CONFIG_UNEVICTABLE_LRU doesn't have any bad side effect.
> So, I expect we can remove UNEVICTABLE_LRU Kconfig option in the future.
> 
> but it is _not_ VM developr consensus. just my thinking.

Me neither, lets ask the originator of the patch. Rik, why is
unevictable lru an option?

-- 
Jens Axboe