From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: Fix LSF default inconsistency
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>,
       Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>,
       LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20081211113646.GI23742@kernel.dk>
References: <20081211202923.330F.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> <20081211113646.GI23742@kernel.dk>
Message-Id: <20081211204006.3312.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 20:44:57 +0900 (JST)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1133
Lines: 30

> 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.


--
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/