Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 7 Sep 1999 00:16:31 +0200 (MET_DST) | From | David Weinehall <> | Subject | Re: v2.3.17pre1 - Patches, Complaints, Questions and Jubilations |
| |
On Mon, 6 Sep 1999, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Mon, 6 Sep 1999, David Weinehall wrote: > > On Sat, 4 Sep 1999, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > > > > > IKD will never be merged because impact lots of common code. I want to be > > > sure to only fix (and not add 8) bugs with IKD. > > > > Ok. Are there ANY parts of IKD that are worth to merge, that don't disrupt > > the main code-paths when not compiled in? > > The SMP automatic deadlock detection parts of the IKD are extremely > simple, impact none of the mainline code, and are occasionally very > useful. > > I've certainly considered integrating those, although if I do (or > preferably if somebody else does ;) I suspect I'd be happier just leaving > them on all the time rather than making them a config option - they are > _that_ non-intrusive.
I've been looking through the IKD for other interesting things, and I thought that we would probably also want the CONFIG_MEMLEAK option in the kernel. What's your opinion on this one? When I get an answer, I'll extract the applicable parts (either just the deadlock detection code, or both of them), port them to v2.3, and then post a patch here. If that's ok with everyone, that is...
/David Weinehall _ _ // David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /> Northern lights wander \\ // Project MCA Linux hacker // Dance across the winter sky // \> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ </ Full colour fire </
- 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/
| |