Hi Mel,

On 08/16/2013 04:33 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:

I already said I recognise it has a large number of users in the field
and users count a lot more than me complaining. If it gets promoted then
I expect it will be on those grounds.

My position is that I think it's a bad idea because it is clear there is no
plan or intention of ever brining zram and zswap together. Instead we are
to have two features providing similar functionality with zram diverging
further from zswap.  Ultimately I believe this will increase maintenance
headaches. It'll get even more entertaining if/when someone ever tries
to reimplement zcache although since Dan left I do not believe anyone is
planning to try. I will not be acking this series but there many be enough

I already reimplemented zcache based on mm/zbud.c.
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/104824

I'll pay more attention to the problems of zswap as you mentioned.

developers that are actually willing to maintain a duel zram/zswap mess
to make it happen anyway.

-- 
Regards,
-Bob

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>