On 06/06/2013 01:55 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 13:03:37 +0400 Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I do think it would be more appropriate to >>> discard the lib/ idea and move it all into fs/ or mm/. >> I have no particular love for this in lib/ >> >> Most of the users are in fs/, so I see no point in mm/ >> So for me, if you are really not happy about lib, I would suggest moving >> this to fs/ > > Always feel free to differ but yes, fs/ seems better to me. > > I suggested mm/ also because that's where the shrinker core resides. > As I said, unless Dave has a strong point against it, I don't really care if it lives in lib/ or not. It is infrastructure, but not necessarily lib-like infrastructure. Now, I have been thinking about this during the last hour, and as much as all users are in fs/, putting it into mm/ would give us quite some other advantage: namely, it has been already detected that we would like to have, if possible, stronger ties between shrinkers, caches and the underlying lists. We use a bunch of mm/ infrastructure, etc. This is always something we can change if it really hurts, but right now I am 51 % mm/ 49 % fs/ -- 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>