> > > + frontswap_enabled = 1;
> >
> > If frontswap_enabled is going to be on all the time, then what point
> > does it serve? By extension, can all of the static inline wrappers in
> > frontswap.h be done away with?
Hm, or the frontswap_enabled can be converted to a "frontswap_flag"
which has:
#define FRONTSWAP_ON (1<<1)
#define FRONTSWAP_BACKEND_ON (1<<2)
or so? And then we can see if we can squash the 'backend_registerd'
and 'frontswap_enabled' together.
>
> The intent of frontswap_enabled and cleancache_enabled was
> to avoid the overhead of a function call at the point where
> each frontswap/cleancache "hooks" is placed, using a global
> variable check instead. I'm not sure if this minor
> performance tuning effort is worth preserving: If not,
> I agree frontswap_enabled and the static inline wrappers (as
> well as their cleancache brethren) could be done away with **;
> if worth preserving, then I think frontswap_enabled could
> be set in the init method instead but the check for enabled
> in the frontswap init method and the cleancache init_fs
> method would need to be removed else lazy initialization
> wouldn't work.
Either way, that should be a seperate patch.
>
> Dan
>
> ** Note to anyone that tries this: There is a subtle but
> clever hack in the wrappers suggested by Jeremy Fitzhardinge
> that disables the wrappers at compile-time as well as
> runtime. IOW, make sure you test-compile both with
> CONFIG_{CLEANCACHE|FRONTSWAP} _and_ with them unconfig'd.
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
--
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>