Hi Christoph, On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 07:33:29AM -0500, Nitin Gupta wrote: >> I just started looking into kztmem (weird name!) but on >> the high level it seems so much similar to zcache with some >> dynamic resizing added (callback for shrinker interface). >> >> Now, I'll try rebuilding zcache according to new cleancache >> API as provided by these set of patches. This will help refresh >> whatever issues I was having back then with pagecache >> compression and maybe pick useful bits/directions from >> new kztmem work. On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Yes, we shouldn't have two drivers doing almost the same in the > tree. Also adding core hooks for staging drivers really is against > the idea of staging of having a separate crap tree. So it would be > good to get zcache into a state where we can merge it into the > proper tree first. And then we can discuss if adding an abstraction > layer between it and the core VM really makes sense, and if it does > how. But I'm pretty sure there's now need for multiple layers of > abstraction for something that's relatively core VM functionality. > > E.g. the abstraction should involve because of it's users, not the > compressed caching code should involve because it's needed to present > a user for otherwise useless code. I'm not sure which hooks you're referring to but for zcache we did this: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=b3a27d0529c6e5206f1b60f60263e3ecfd0d77cb I completely agree with getting zcache merged properly before going for the cleancache stuff. Pekka -- 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