On 09/27/2012 05:07 PM, Dan Magenheimer wrote: > Of course, I'm of the opinion that neither zcache1 nor > zcache2 would be likely to be promoted for at least another > cycle or two, so if you go with zcache2+zsmalloc as the compromise > and it still takes six months for promotion, I hope you don't > blame that on the "rewrite". ;-) > > Anyway, looking forward (hopefully) to working with you on > a good compromise. It would be nice to get back to coding > and working together on a single path forward for zcache > as there is a lot of work to do! We want to see zcache moving forward so that it can get out of staging and into the hands of end users. From the direction the discussion has taken, replacing zcache with the new code appears to be the right compromise for the situation. Moving to the new zcache code resets the clock so I would like to know that we're all on the same track... 1- Promotion must be the top priority, focus needs to be on making the code production ready rather than adding more features. 2- The code is in the community and development must be done in public, no further large private rewrites. 3- Benchmarks need to be agreed on, Mel has suggested some of the MMTests. We need a way to talk about performance so we can make comparisions, avoid regressions, and talk about promotion criteria. They should be something any developer can run. 4- Let's investigate breaking ramster out of zcache so that zcache remains a separately testable building block; Konrad was looking at this I believe. RAMSTer adds another functional mode for zcache and adds to the difficulty of validating patches. Not every developer has a cluster of machines to validate RAMSter. 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>