From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 13:54:53 +0100 (BST) From: Hugh Dickins Subject: Re: 2.6.22 -mm merge plans: slub In-Reply-To: <20070501133618.93793687.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Message-ID: References: <20070430162007.ad46e153.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070501125559.9ab42896.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070501133618.93793687.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton Cc: Christoph Lameter , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, 1 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Given the current state and the current rate of development I'd expect slub > to have reached the level of completion which you're describing around -rc2 > or -rc3. I think we'd be pretty safe making that assumption. Its developer does show signs of being active! > > This is a bit unusual but there is of course some self-interest here: the > patch dependencies are getting awful and having this hanging around > out-of-tree will make 2.6.23 development harder for everyone. That is a very strong argument: a somewhat worrisome argument, but a very strong one. Maintaining your sanity is important. > > So on balance, given that we _do_ expect slub to have a future, I'm > inclined to crash ahead with it. The worst that can happen will be a later > rm mm/slub.c which would be pretty simple to do. Okay. And there's been no chorus to echo my concern. But if Linus' tree is to be better than a warehouse to avoid awkward merges, I still think we want it to default to on for all the architectures, and for most if not all -rcs. > > otoh I could do some frantic patch mangling and make it easier to carry > slub out-of-tree, but do we gain much from that? No, keep away from that. Hugh -- 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: email@kvack.org