Hello, On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 10:56:09PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: > For me, it is the other way around: it makes perfect sense to have a > per-subtree selection of features where it doesn't hurt us, provided it > is hierarchical. For the mere fact that not every application is > interested in this (Michal is the one that is being so far more vocal > about this not being needed in some use cases), and it is perfectly > valid to imagine such applications would coexist. > > So given the flexibility it brings, the real question is, as I said, > backwards: what is it necessary to make it a global switch ? Because it hurts my head and it's better to keep things simple. We're planning to retire .use_hierarhcy in sub hierarchies and I'd really like to prevent another fiasco like that unless there absolutely is no way around it. Flexibility where necessary is fine but let's please try our best to avoid over-designing things. We've been far too good at getting lost in flexbility maze. Michal, care to chime in? Thanks. -- tejun -- 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>