Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 08 Oct 2001 11:24:33 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: low-latency patches |
| |
george anzinger wrote: > > Well, no, but do we want to improve as kernel writers, or just stay > "hackers"? If low latency was a concern the same way lack of dead locks > and avoiding OOPs is today, don't you think we would be better coders? > As for me, I want to shoot for the higher goal. Even if I miss, I will > still have accomplished more than if I had shot for the mundane.
Right. It needs to be a conscious, planned decision: "from now on, holding a lock for more than 500 usecs is a bug".
So someone, be it Linus, "the community" or my Mum needs to decide that this is a feature which the kernel will henceforth support.
It's a new feature - it should be treated as such.
- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |