Re: [PATCH -mm 11/24] pageflag helpers for configed-out flags

[Lee Schermerhorn]

On Wed, 2008-06-11 at 16:08 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:01:45 -0700
> Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:42:25 -0400
> > Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > Define proper false/noop inline functions for noreclaim page
> > > flags when !defined(CONFIG_NORECLAIM_LRU)
> > 
> > I changed that to CONFIG_UNEVICTABLE_LRU.
> > 
> > Did we agree that the presence of this config variable is undesirable? 
> > If so, what's involved in making it go away?
> 
> We agreed that having CONFIG_NORELAIM_SWAP was bad, that one went away.

That was CONFIG_NORELAIM_MLOCK, right?

Which reminds me:  we'll need to change the description of
CONFIG_UNEVICTABLE_LRU to state that it uses 2 page flags if, indeed, we
want to say anything about page flag usage in the Kconfig help text.
Not sure that's helpful.

> 
> As for CONFIG_UNEVICTABLE_LRU, I believe we will want to at least give
> embedded people the option to compile without all that code, similar
> to CONFIG_SWAP.

Agree.

Lee

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/