lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Oct]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 2.1.125 Show stopper list: Draft
On Tue, 13 Oct 1998, Rik van Riel wrote:

>Damnit, Andrea! I have outlined the _theoretical_
>possibility of it happening _and_ the easy yet

If the possiblity is theorical it' s also doable in practice and you are
really allowed to use the theory to discover a way to cause my OOM patch
to fail.

According to me the OOM problem of 2.1 is not more an issue and you can
convince me that I am wrong _only_ causing my code to fail. If my code it'
s so obviously buggy and obviously wrong, should be trivial for you to
find _the_ way to reproduce failed allocation.

And btw I _only_ had very good report so far.

>What is wrong with that approach?

I don' t agree to add new features to workaround bugs.

If you would send me your patch via email privately (the web is too slow
to be browsed from here...) I would thank you and I' ll take a look at it.

Andrea Arcangeli


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:45    [W:0.211 / U:1.736 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site