> >> 1. zs_handle zs_malloc(size_t size, gfp_t flags) - share a pool by many subsystem(like kmalloc) > >> 2. zs_handle zs_malloc_pool(struct zs_pool *pool, size_t size) - use own pool(like kmem_cache_alloc) > >> > >> Any thoughts? > > > > I don't have any objections to adding this kind of > > capability to zsmalloc. But since we are just speculating > > that this capability would be used by some future > > kernel subsystem, isn't it normal kernel protocol for > > this new capability NOT to be added until that future > > kernel subsystem creates a need for it. > > > Now zram makes pool per block device and a embedded system may use zram > for several block device, ex) swap device, several compressed tmpfs > In such case, share pool is better than private pool because embedded system > don't mount/umount frequently on such directories since booting. > > > > > As I said in reply to the other thread, there is missing > > functionality in zsmalloc that is making it difficult for > > it to be used by zcache. It would be good if Seth > > and Nitin (and any other kernel developers) would work > > > So, if you guys post TODO list, it helps fix the direction. > > > on those issues before adding capabilities for non-existent > > future users of zsmalloc. > > > I think it's not urgent than zs_handle mess. I am having a hard time parsing that. Are you saying that this is not as important as the zs_handle fixup? I think that is what you meant, but what to make sure. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>