Subject: Re: subr_vmem.c supersedes subr_blist.c?
To: YAMAMOTO Takashi <email@example.com>
From: Jason Thorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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
> it can't be handled by vmem.
Ah, right, of course.