Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 14 Oct 1998 01:07:02 +0200 (CEST) | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |