Re: [PATCH 10/28] mm: only allow page table mappings for built-in zsmalloc

[Sergey Senozhatsky]

On (20/04/09 10:08), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > Even though I don't know how many usecase we have using zsmalloc as
> > > module(I heard only once by dumb reason), it could affect existing
> > > users. Thus, please include concrete explanation in the patch to
> > > justify when the complain occurs.
> > 
> > The justification is 'we can unexport functions that have no sane reason
> > of being exported in the first place'.
> > 
> > The Changelog pretty much says that.
> 
> Okay, I hope there is no affected user since this patch.
> If there are someone, they need to provide sane reason why they want
> to have zsmalloc as module.

I'm one of those who use zsmalloc as a module - mainly because I use zram
as a compressing general purpose block device, not as a swap device.
I create zram0, mkfs, mount, checkout and compile code, once done -
umount, rmmod. This reduces the number of writes to SSD. Some people use
tmpfs, but zram device(-s) can be much larger in size. That's a niche use
case and I'm not against the patch.

	-ss