Date: Wed, 08 Jul 1998 08:31:38 +0200 From: Stefan Eggers <seggers@semyam.dinoco.de> To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: David Kelly <dkelly@hiwaay.net> Subject: Re: Someone working on swapoff? Message-ID: <199807080631.IAA01081@semyam.dinoco.de> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 07 Jul 1998 19:38:27 CDT." <199807080038.TAA18009@nospam.hiwaay.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> system, but would it be breaking sacred tradition to merge swapon and > the future swapoff into one "swap" management utility? The unified > utility could do swapon tasks if linked to the name "swapon" and > swapoff tasks if its named "swapoff". I think deciding on the name how to behave is not that good an idea in the first place. Besides this: How long would the swapoff in user land be? About 50 lines or less I'd guess. Merging is not worth any effort as it does save nothing in C code lines but adds more code to do the check the program name and call the corresponding code. What would then be worth talking about is replacing swapon with a new command for swap management. But that can wait till there is any need for this i.e. the kernel support for swapoff or priorities or something like that is at least nearly finished! For that such a merger might be worthwhile as the swapon functionalty would be in the new command already and one would have to support swapon for compatibility at least for a while. That's like pstat and swapinfo. Stefan. -- Stefan Eggers Lu4 yao2 zhi1 ma3 li4, Max-Slevogt-Str. 1 ri4 jiu3 jian4 ren2 xin1. 51109 Koeln Federal Republic of Germany To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199807080631.IAA01081>