From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2993105AbXEBMzJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 May 2007 08:55:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S2993116AbXEBMzJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 May 2007 08:55:09 -0400 Received: from extu-mxob-2.symantec.com ([216.10.194.135]:4188 "EHLO extu-mxob-2.symantec.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2993105AbXEBMzH (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 May 2007 08:55:07 -0400 Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 13:54:53 +0100 (BST) From: Hugh Dickins X-X-Sender: hugh@blonde.wat.veritas.com To: Andrew Morton cc: Christoph Lameter , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: 2.6.22 -mm merge plans: slub In-Reply-To: <20070501133618.93793687.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Message-ID: References: <20070430162007.ad46e153.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070501125559.9ab42896.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070501133618.93793687.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 May 2007 12:55:06.0455 (UTC) FILETIME=[1BAD9E70:01C78CB9] X-Brightmail-Verdict: VlJEQwAAAAIAAAABAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAABGluYm94AGxpbnV4LWtlcm5lbEB2Z2VyLmtlcm5lbC5vcmcAYWtwbUBsaW51eC1mb3VuZGF0aW9uLm9yZwBjbGFtZXRlckBzZ2kuY29tAGxpbnV4LW1tQGt2YWNrLm9yZwA= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 1 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: > > 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. Its developer does show signs of being active! > > 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. That is a very strong argument: a somewhat worrisome argument, but a very strong one. Maintaining your sanity is important. > > 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. Okay. And there's been no chorus to echo my concern. But if Linus' tree is to be better than a warehouse to avoid awkward merges, I still think we want it to default to on for all the architectures, and for most if not all -rcs. > > 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? No, keep away from that. Hugh