Re: Frontswap [PATCH 0/4] (was Transcendent Memory): overview

[Avi Kivity]

On 04/26/2010 03:50 PM, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
> > > Maybe incremental development is better? Stabilize and refine
> > >        
> > existing
> >      
> > > code and gradually move to async API, if required in future?
> > >        
> > Incremental development is fine, especially for ramzswap where the APIs
> > are all internal.  I'm more worried about external interfaces, these
> > stick around a lot longer and if not done right they're a pain forever.
> >      
> Well if you are saying that your primary objection to the
> frontswap synchronous API is that it is exposed to modules via
> some EXPORT_SYMBOLs, we can certainly fix that, at least
> unless/until there are other pseudo-RAM devices that can use it.
>
> Would that resolve your concerns?
>    

By external interfaces I mean the guest/hypervisor interface.  
EXPORT_SYMBOL is an internal interface as far as I'm concerned.

Now, the frontswap interface is also an internal interface, but it's 
close to the external one.  I'd feel much better if it was asynchronous.

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
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/