On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:46:23 +1100 Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Friday 16 January 2009 15:12:10 Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:03:12 +1100 Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > I would like to see SLQB merged in mainline, made default, and wait for > > > some number releases. Then we take what we know, and try to make an > > > informed decision about the best one to take. I guess that is problematic > > > in that the rest of the kernel is moving underneath us. Do you have > > > another idea? > > > > Nope. If it doesn't work out, we can remove it again I guess. > > OK, I have these numbers to show I'm not completely off my rocker to suggest > we merge SLQB :) Given these results, how about I ask to merge SLQB as default > in linux-next, then if nothing catastrophic happens, merge it upstream in the > next merge window, then a couple of releases after that, given some time to > test and tweak SLQB, then we plan to bite the bullet and emerge with just one > main slab allocator (plus SLOB). That's a plan. > SLQB tends to be the winner here. Can you think of anything with which it will be the loser? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
