Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sat, 1 Dec 2001 10:16:03 -0700 | From | Victor Yodaiken <> | Subject | Re: Linux/Pro [was Re: Coding style - a non-issue] |
| |
On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 10:05:55AM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > > sufficient for development of a great 1-to-4-way kernel, and > > that the biggest force against that is the introduction of > > fine-grained locking. Are you sure about this? Do you see > > ways in which the uniprocessor team can improve? > > ccCluster seems a sane idea to me. I don't by Larry's software engineering > thesis but ccCluster makes sense simply because when you want an efficient > system in computing you get it by not pretending one thing is another. > SMP works best when the processors are not doing anything that interacts > with another CPU.
Careful Alan. That sounds suspiciously like a "design principle", and true macho Linux developers don't need no theoretical stuff like that. They just slop that code together and see what explodes - pulling their alchemists hats over their eyes for protection.
> > > key people get atracted into mm/*.c, fs/*.c, net/most_everything > > and kernel/*.c while other great wilderness of the tree (with > > honourable exceptions) get moldier. How to address that? > > Actually there are lots of people who work on the driver code nowdays > notably the janitors. The biggest problem there IMHO is that when it comes > to driver code Linus has no taste, so he keeps accepting driver patches > which IMHO are firmly at the hamburger end of "taste"
"Taste" ? Now you want aesthetics as well as theory. I'm horrified.
Technical content: does anyone know the max spinlock depth in Linux 2.5 ?
- 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/
|  |