Nick
has been talking about 'fixing the updatedb thing' for years now, no patch
yet.
Besides, he won't fix OO.o nor all other userspace stuff - so actually,
he does NOT even promise an alternative. Not that I think fixing updatedb
would be cool, btw - it sure would, but it's no reason not to include swap
prefetch - it's mostly unrelated.
I think everyone with >1 gb ram should stop saying 'I don't need it' because
that's obvious for that hardware. Just like ppl having a dual- or quadcore
shouldn't even talk about scheduler interactivity stuff...
Desktop users want it, tests show it works, there is no alternative and the
maybe-promised-one won't even fix all cornercases. It's small, mostly
selfcontained. There is a maintainer. It's been stable for a long time. It's
been in MM for a long time.
Yet it doesn't make it. Andrew says 'some ppl have objections' (he means
Nick) and he doesn't see an advantage in it (at least 4 gig ram, right,
Andrew?).
Do I miss things?
Apparently, it didn't get in yet - and I find it hard to believe Andrew
holds swapprefetch for reasons like the above. So it must be something else.
Nick is saying tests have already proven swap prefetch to be helpfull,
that's not the problem. He calls the requirements to get in 'fuzzy'. OK.