Re: [PATCH 0/3] mm: remove zpool

[Vitaly Wool <vitaly.wool@konsulko.se>]

On 9/4/25 13:26, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 04.09.25 12:13, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 9/4/25 11:33, Vitaly Wool wrote:
>>>> With zswap using zsmalloc directly, there are no more in-tree users of
>>>> this code. Remove it.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
>>>
>>> Per the previous discussions, this gets a *NACK* from my side. There is
>>> hardly anything _technical_ preventing new in-tree users of zpool API.
>>> zpool API is neutral and well-defined, I don’t see *any* good reason for
>>> it to be phased out.
>>
>> AFAIK it's a policy that unused code should be removed ASAP. And 
>> that's the
>> case for zpool after Patch 1, no? It could be different if another 
>> user was
>> about to be merged (to avoid unnecessary churn), but that doesn't seem 
>> the
>> case for zblock?
> 
> Right, and
> 
>   13 files changed, 84 insertions(+), 715 deletions(-)
> 
> speaks for itself if there is no new user anticipated.

Well, there surely is.

> IIRC, we did a similar approach when we removed frontswap.
>