Re: [patch] make sysctl_overcommit_memory enumeration sensible

[Nick Piggin]

Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 08:01:10PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> > Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote:
> >
> > > I see system admins often confused when they sysctl vm.overcommit_memory.
> > > This patch makes overcommit_memory enumeration sensible.
> >
> > What's the point? The current has been there for a long time, and
> > is well documented.
>
>
> Yes, the current is well documented and for a long time. But the design is
> insane, no matter how well and how long it is documented. Users have to read
> the document for *many times*.
>
> The new way is logical so it would let us "read once, remember always".

That's just not how it's done, full stop.

If it was really a big problem, you'd add a new sysctl with the new
behaviour, put a warning printk in the kernel that says the old one
is deprecated, wait for a year or so, then remove the old one.

But I suspect it simply doesn't matter that much in this case.

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 
-
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/