On (20/04/09 10:08), Minchan Kim wrote: > > > Even though I don't know how many usecase we have using zsmalloc as > > > module(I heard only once by dumb reason), it could affect existing > > > users. Thus, please include concrete explanation in the patch to > > > justify when the complain occurs. > > > > The justification is 'we can unexport functions that have no sane reason > > of being exported in the first place'. > > > > The Changelog pretty much says that. > > Okay, I hope there is no affected user since this patch. > If there are someone, they need to provide sane reason why they want > to have zsmalloc as module. I'm one of those who use zsmalloc as a module - mainly because I use zram as a compressing general purpose block device, not as a swap device. I create zram0, mkfs, mount, checkout and compile code, once done - umount, rmmod. This reduces the number of writes to SSD. Some people use tmpfs, but zram device(-s) can be much larger in size. That's a niche use case and I'm not against the patch. -ss
