[lkml]   [2000]   [Dec]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Linux 2.2.19pre2
    On Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 03:07:08PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
    > c) will also implement a) in an obviously right and simple way.

    So go ahead. If you think that's so simple and obviously right you can post
    here a patch here against 2.2.19pre2 that implements C) to show real facts.

    My B is here:

    Then we will see how much C) is obviously right and simple way compared to B).

    I don't need to see C) implemented to see how much it's obviously right
    and simple but if you think I'm wrong again: go ahead.

    It would also be nice if you could show a real life
    showstopper-production-bottleneck where we need C) to fix it. I cannot see any
    useful usage of C in production 2.2.x.

    Doing waitqueues in 2.2.x and 2.4.x is an irrelevant point (keeping the same
    API and semantics is much better than anything else for 2.2.x unless there's
    some serious showstopper that isn't possible to fix with B) and that I still
    cannot see).

    People backporting drivers from 2.4.x will use wake-all as they had to do
    during the whole 2.3.x, that's obviously safe and trivial. If they know what
    they're doing they can also use the 2.2.x wake-one API if their task is
    registered only in 1 waitqueues (as 99% of usages I'm aware of given
    whole 2.3.x implemented B too).

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 12:52    [W:15.029 / U:0.020 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site