Hi Mel, On 08/16/2013 04:33 PM, Mel Gorman wrote: > > I already said I recognise it has a large number of users in the field > and users count a lot more than me complaining. If it gets promoted then > I expect it will be on those grounds. > > My position is that I think it's a bad idea because it is clear there is no > plan or intention of ever brining zram and zswap together. Instead we are > to have two features providing similar functionality with zram diverging > further from zswap. Ultimately I believe this will increase maintenance > headaches. It'll get even more entertaining if/when someone ever tries > to reimplement zcache although since Dan left I do not believe anyone is > planning to try. I will not be acking this series but there many be enough I already reimplemented zcache based on mm/zbud.c. http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/104824 I'll pay more attention to the problems of zswap as you mentioned. > developers that are actually willing to maintain a duel zram/zswap mess > to make it happen anyway. > -- Regards, -Bob -- 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>