On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 11:05 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Note that 1) and 2) are not problems per se, it's just implementation >> details, easy stuff. Vmevent is basically an ABI/API, and I didn't >> hear anybody who would object to vmevent ABI idea itself. More than >> this, nobody stop us from implementing in-kernel vmevent API, and >> make Android Lowmemory killer use it, if we want to. > > I never agree "it's mere ABI" discussion. Until the implementation is ugly, > I never agree the ABI even if syscall interface is very clean. I don't know what discussion you are talking about. I also don't agree that something should be merged just because the ABI is clean. The implementation must also make sense. I don't see how we disagree here at all. -- 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>