Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 16:00:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 16:00:03 -0500 Received: from zero.tech9.net ([209.61.188.187]:13070 "EHLO zero.tech9.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 15:59:56 -0500 Subject: Re: 2.4.19pre1aa1 From: Robert Love To: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: Denis Vlasenko , Bill Davidsen , Mike Fedyk , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rik van Riel In-Reply-To: <20020302214739.B20606@dualathlon.random> In-Reply-To: <200203021958.g22JwKq08818@Port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua> <20020302214739.B20606@dualathlon.random> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Evolution/1.0.2 Date: 02 Mar 2002 15:58:21 -0500 Message-Id: <1015102702.14000.17.camel@phantasy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2002-03-02 at 15:47, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Sat, Mar 02, 2002 at 09:57:49PM -0200, Denis Vlasenko wrote: > > > If rmap is really better than current VM, it will be merged into head > > development branch (2.5). There is no anti-rmap conspiracy :-) > > Indeed. Of note: I don't think anyone "loses" if one VM is merged or not. A reverse mapping VM is a significant redesign of our current VM approach and if it proves better, yes, I suspect (and hope) it will be merged into 2.5. But that doesn't mean the 2.4 VM is worse, per se. Robert Love - 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/