Re: 2.6.5-rc2-aa1

[Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>]

On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 10:09:06AM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2004, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> 
> > >  * This is kept modular because we may want to experiment
> > >  * with object-based reverse mapping schemes.
> > 
> > obviously I read that comment, but I definitely hope he meant people
> > adding objrmap.c w/o necessairly deleting rmap.c too like me and you did
> 
> On the contrary.  I started out by looking at object based
> rmap, but Ben and Dave told me about the worst case scenarios.
> Only after that I started working on a pte based rmap scheme.
> 
> Now that the big problems with object based rmap are solved,
> I'd really like to see the pte chain code go away...

me too, that's why I deleted mm/rmap.c and I use objrmap.c instead. rmap
has always been used for years to mean your current implementation
of pte based reverse mappings in 2.6-mainline and 2.4-rmap, that's
blatantly too obvious to even make further jokes about that. If you now
me to believe that that is not true and that every single time you said
"rmap" it was a strict english abbreviation for the generic word
"reverse mappings" without any remote relation to the current
2.6-mainline and 2.4-rmap implementation of the reverse mapping methods,
then maybe you want to write some PR don't waste your time trying to
convince me.