Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 21 Dec 2000 15:07:08 -0200 (BRDT) | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: Linux 2.2.19pre2 |
| |
On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > The key question is: which of the following do we want? > > > > a) A simple, specific accept()-accelerator, and 2.2 remains without > > an exclusive wq API or > > To make the accellerator we need a minimal wake-one support. So a) doesn't > make sense to me. > > > b) A general purpose exclusive wq mechanism which does not correctly > > support waiting on two queues simultaneuously where one is > > exclusive or > > That's what we had in whole 2.3.x and that is better suitable for 2.2.x > as it allows to do a) with obviously right approch and minimal effort. > > > c) A general purpose exclusive wq mechanism which _does_ support it. > > > > Each choice has merit! You seem to want b). davem wants c). > > I have not read any email from DaveM who proposes C for > 2.2.19pre3 (or 2.2.x in general). Are you sure he wasn't talking > about 2.4.x?
c) will also implement a) in an obviously right and simple way.
I've still not seen ANY reason why we'd want 2.2 to have different wake-one semantics from 2.4...
> > And given that 2.2 has maybe 2-4 years life left in it, I'd > > I hope no ;).
People are still converting their 2.0 systems to 2.2 as we speak. I really doubt that 2.2 has _less_ than 3 years of life left ... as much as I hate this idea ;)
> > agree with David. Let's do it once and do it right while the issue > > is fresh in our minds. > > I disagree. The changes to separate the two waitqueues even only > for accept are not suitable for 2.2.x. Alan filter should forbid > that changes. They're simply not worthwhile because I cannot > even think at ...
They're not worthwhile just because you can't think of an example ?
The same could be said of `b)' above. Do you have an example where that is the preferable semantics ?
If both are equally preferable (ie. nobody can think of any example where the corner case is being used), why do you keep insisting on giving 2.2 different wake-one semantics from 2.4 ?
[these wake-one semantics may become rather important for people backporting drivers to 2.2 over the next years ... or to something else which nobody has even thought about ... 2-4 years is a long time, so 2.2 maintainability is still an issue]
regards,
Rik -- Hollywood goes for world dumbination, Trailer at 11.
http://www.surriel.com/ http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com.br/
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |