On Tue, 1 May 2007 21:19:09 +0100 (BST) Hugh Dickins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 1 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Tue, 1 May 2007 19:10:29 +0100 (BST) > > Hugh Dickins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Most of the rest of slub. Will merge it all. > > > > > > Merging slub already? I'm surprised. > > > > My thinking here is "does slub have a future". > > I think the answer is "yes", > > I think I agree with that, > though it's a judgement I'd leave to you and others. > > > so we're reasonably safe getting it into mainline for the finishing > > work. The kernel.org kernel will still default to slab. > > > > Does that sound wrong? > > Yes, to me it does. If it could be defaulted to on throughout the > -rcs, on every architecture, then I'd say that's "finishing work"; > and we'd be safe knowing we could go back to slab in a hurry if > needed. But it hasn't reached that stage yet, I think. > Given the current state and the current rate of development I'd expect slub to have reached the level of completion which you're describing around -rc2 or -rc3. I think we'd be pretty safe making that assumption. This is a bit unusual but there is of course some self-interest here: the patch dependencies are getting awful and having this hanging around out-of-tree will make 2.6.23 development harder for everyone. So on balance, given that we _do_ expect slub to have a future, I'm inclined to crash ahead with it. The worst that can happen will be a later rm mm/slub.c which would be pretty simple to do. otoh I could do some frantic patch mangling and make it easier to carry slub out-of-tree, but do we gain much from that? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/