Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S277629AbRJVSyJ>; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 14:54:09 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S277630AbRJVSyA>; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 14:54:00 -0400
Received: from perninha.conectiva.com.br ([200.250.58.156]:15373 "HELO
	perninha.conectiva.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP
	id <S277629AbRJVSxr>; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 14:53:47 -0400
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:32:41 -0200 (BRST)
From: Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo@conectiva.com.br>
To: Mike Fedyk <mfedyk@matchmail.com>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
        "Michael T. Babcock" <mbabcock@fibrespeed.net>,
        Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: VM
In-Reply-To: <20011022110058.C27227@mikef-linux.matchmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0110221531290.15815-100000@freak.distro.conectiva>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Mike Fedyk wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 03:02:49PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > I have never done this comparison myself, but I was wondering how ugly 
> > > it would be if stable versions of Andrea's and Rik's VMs were both 
> > > available in your/Linus' kernel as compile-time options.  Assuming that 
> > > each provides better performance under certain conditions, wouldn't 
> > 
> > Too ugly for words.
> 
> Though, if it's done from the start of 2.5, it could be very possible.  Is
> there a way to make it non-ugly?

Even if its non-ugly, its non-easy. Way too much overhead.

For 2.5 we'll probably be able to get people working together. 

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/