On 9/12/06, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > Linus, when I mentioned swap over network to you in Ottawa, you said it was > a valid use case, that people actually do and want this. Can you agree with > the approach taken in these patches? Well, in all honesty, I don't think I really said "valid", but that I said that some crazy people want to do it, and that we should try to allow them their foibles. So I'd be nervous to do any _guarantees_. I think that good VM policies should make it be something that works in general (the dirty mapping limits in particular), but I'd be a bit nervous about anybody taking it _too_ seriously. Crazy people are still crazy, they just might be right under certain reasonably-well-controlled circumstances.
(oops, forgot to cc: the list) Personally, I'm a little unhappy with the added complexity here, I'm not convinced that this extra feature is worth it. In particular, adding to the address_space_operations, the block_device_operations, and creating a new swap index/offset interface just for this seems questionable. I feel like interface bloat should be reserved for features that have widespread use and benefit. Not that I'm opposed to this feature, just that I think this patch is too invasive interface-wise. NATE - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
