Re: [PATCH] block: Fix LSF default inconsistency

[KOSAKI Motohiro]

> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/