On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 11:23:49 +0100 Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > I'm sorry again and again, but I think removing "noswapaccount" completely > > would be better, as Andrew said first: > > I read the above Andrew's statement that we really should stick with the > old parameter. yup. We shouldn't remove the existing parameter, which people might be using already. > > > So we have swapaccount and noswapaccount. Ho hum, "swapaccount=[1|0]" > > > would have been better. What I meant was that it was a mistake to add the "noswapaccount" in the first place. We should have made it "swapaccount=0", because that would leave open the later option of reversing the default, and enabling "swapaccount=1". It also give us the option of adding "swapaccount=2"! Perhaps to enable alternative swap accounting behaviour. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>