Subject: Re: subr_vmem.c supersedes subr_blist.c?
To: YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamt@mwd.biglobe.ne.jp>
From: Jason Thorpe <thorpej@shagadelic.org>
List: tech-kern
Date: 10/05/2006 16:57:37 
On Oct 5, 2006, at 4:51 PM, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:

>> Doesn't vmem(9) supersede the functionality in subr_blist.c?  If so,
>> the stuff that uses blists should be changed to use vmem, and
>> subr_blist.c deleted from the tree.
>>
>> -- thorpej
>
> uvm allocates a chunk of contiguous swap slots, and free them  
> individually.
> it can't be handled by vmem.

Ah, right, of course.

Thanks.

-- thorpej