Christoph Lameter wrote:
quoted text
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
>> But that's not my place to say, and I'm actually not arguing that high
>> order pagecache does not have uses (especially as a practical,
>> shorter-term solution which is unintrusive to filesystems).
>>
>> So no, I don't think I'm really going against the basics of what we agreed
>> in Cambridge. But it sounds like it's still being billed as first-order
>> support right off the bat here.
> 
> Well its seems that we have different interpretations of what was agreed 
> on. My understanding was that the large blocksize patchset was okay 
> provided that I supply an acceptable mmap implementation and put a 
> warning in.

I think all we agreed on was that both patches needed significant work
and would need to be judged after they were completed ;-)

There was talk of putting Christoph's approach in more-or-less as-is
as a very specialized and limited application ... but I don't think
we concluded anything for the more general and long-term case apart
from "this is hard" ;-)

M.
-
unsubscribe notice
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/