On 09/21/2012 11:12 AM, Mel Gorman wrote: > That said, my initial feeling still stands. I think that this needs to move > out of staging because it's in limbo where it is but Andrew may disagree > because of the reservations. If my reservations are accurate then they > should at least be *clearly* documented with a note saying that using > this in production is ill-advised for now. If zcache is activated via the > kernel parameter, it should print a big dirty warning that the feature is > still experiemental and leave that warning there until all the issues are > addressed. Right now I'm not convinced this is production ready but that > the issues could be fixed incrementally. Thank you _so_ much for the review! Your comments have provided one of the few glimpses I've had into any other thoughts on the code save Dan and my own. I'm in the process of going through the comments you provided. I am _very_ glad to hear you believe that zcache should be promoted out of the staging limbo where it currently resides. I am fine with providing a warning against use in production environments until we can address everyone's concerns. Once zcache is promoted, I think it will give the code more opportunity to be used/improved/extended in an incremental and stable way. -- Seth -- 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/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>