Re: 2.6.1-rc1-tiny2

[Matt Mackall]

On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:27:33AM -0800, Mitchell Blank Jr wrote:
> Matt Mackall wrote:
> > When I merge
> > CONFIG_BLOCK, it'll be more generally useful.
> 
> Maybe it would make more sense to have CONFIG_MEMPOOL=n just remove
> the mempool API entirely and have it imply CONFIG_BLOCK=n, CONFIG_NFS_FS=n,
> and CONFIG_NFSD=n?  Just a thought.

NFS is a good example of why the guarantees of mempool are being
overstated - it still needs to allocate SKBs to make progress and
preallocating a pool for other data structures can make that fail
where it otherwise might not. The pool size for NFS (32) is also
completely arbitrary as far as I can tell.

> It seems like a reasonalbe thing to omit for some tiny configs that don't
> need it, but if the API is provided it should probably work as expected.

The API _does_ work. It was a best effort with buffering before, it's
a best effort without buffering now.

-- 
Matt Mackall : http://www.selenic.com : Linux development and consulting
-
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/