Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754195AbYLLT0g (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:26:36 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752086AbYLLT0O (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:26:14 -0500 Received: from extu-mxob-2.symantec.com ([216.10.194.135]:40103 "EHLO extu-mxob-2.symantec.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751485AbYLLT0J (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:26:09 -0500 Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:26:24 +0000 (GMT) From: Hugh Dickins X-X-Sender: hugh@blonde.anvils To: Rik van Riel cc: KOSAKI Motohiro , Jens Axboe , Jean Delvare , Trond Myklebust , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: Fix LSF default inconsistency In-Reply-To: <4942A6C5.1090606@redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <20081211202923.330F.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> <20081211113646.GI23742@kernel.dk> <20081211204006.3312.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> <20081212075844.GH23742@kernel.dk> <49426C16.6040108@redhat.com> <2f11576a0812120711l130e07c3x94ff3b1e64959edf@mail.gmail.com> <494292D4.6090302@redhat.com> <4942A6C5.1090606@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 662 Lines: 17 On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, Rik van Riel wrote: > > keeping CONFIG_UNEVICTABLE_LRU may be a good idea after all. Do you mean, keeping the CONFIG_UNEVICTABLE_LRU codepath even when CONFIG_SWAP=n is a good idea? Or do you see a reason we actually still need CONFIG_UNEVICTABLE_LRU as an option? It does add about 2.6k to kernel text (YMMV), is saving that worth the extra config option? For others to vote, really. Hugh -- 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/