[lkml]   [2001]   [Oct]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:04    [W:0.044 / U:1.016 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site