Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756364AbYLKLhT (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2008 06:37:19 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755272AbYLKLhH (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2008 06:37:07 -0500 Received: from brick.kernel.dk ([93.163.65.50]:23956 "EHLO kernel.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755248AbYLKLhF (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2008 06:37:05 -0500 Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:36:47 +0100 From: Jens Axboe To: KOSAKI Motohiro Cc: Jean Delvare , Trond Myklebust , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: Fix LSF default inconsistency Message-ID: <20081211113646.GI23742@kernel.dk> References: <20081211115844.1b1dbf49@hyperion.delvare> <20081211110839.GH23742@kernel.dk> <20081211202923.330F.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081211202923.330F.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 882 Lines: 24 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? -- Jens Axboe -- 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/