On 9 November 2016 at 18:36, Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 9 Nov 2016, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> >> Hi all -mm folks! >> >> Any feedback on these two? It's kinda an intermediate step towards a >> full-blown gemfs, and I think useful for that. Or do we need to go >> directly to our own backing storage thing? Aside from ack/nack from -mm I >> think this is ready for merging. > > I'm currently considering them at last: will report back later. > > Full-blown gemfs does not come in here, of course; but let me > fire a warning shot since you mention it: if it's going to use swap, > then we shall probably have to nak it in favour of continuing to use > infrastructure from mm/shmem.c. I very much understand why you would > love to avoid that dependence, but I doubt it can be safely bypassed. Could you please elaborate on what specifically you don't like about gemfs implementing swap, just to make sure I'm following? Thanks, Matt _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
