Hubert Feyrer wrote:
> 

> I'd rather call a patchset that needs to get downloaded and applied a 
> lot more "icky" than something that's in-tree, where it's most likely to 
> also get maintained a lot better than some out-of-tree patch.
> 
> Of course judging that would require some more details, ie. what parts 
> of UVM etc. you'd need to modify. I guess using some "compressed pages" 
> thing as backing store should fit rather neatly in, and not be too 
> "icky" for
> an option or (pseudo)device.

Hmm.. yes I see your point. I'm flip-flopping, a patchset would be too 
messy.


> As far as I understand your intended project, it is to add an extra 
> layer of backing store for memory, i.e. instead of writing data straight 
> to swap, you first move it to "compressed swap (memory?)" which then has 
> swap as backing store.
> 
> What kind of storage "swap" exactly is, if a file or a partition, 
> shouldn't matter at all.
> 

Good point.