[lkml]   [2004]   [Oct]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.9-rc4-mm1-U8
On Fri, Oct 22 2004, Bill Huey wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 11:20:59AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > I've been as clear as I know how on the matter of semaphore use in
> > Linux. I've made no comments at all on improving your deadlock
> > detection scheme.
> True, but "...deadlock detection breaks" is a negative comment about
> the deadlock detector without a positive suggestion to change it, is
> it not ? if so, then suggest a change to be made and it'll get
> implementated somehow.

It's a statement about the deadlock detection which is true, it's not a
negative comment. A negative comment would be something ala "the
deadlock detection code is crap". Note, to avoid further confusion in
this thread: I have not read the deadlock detection code, nor do I
intend to. The sentence is only an example of what a negative comment
would look like, in no way does it reflect my view of the deadlock
detection code. End disclaimer.

As I said, I have no personal motivation to work on the deadlock
detection. My interest in the thread pertained only to code in the
kernel and its use of semaphores - something that we already cleared up
many mails ago.

So, please, lets just end it here. This branch of the thread has already
dragged on for way too long.

Jens Axboe

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 14:07    [W:0.563 / U:1.792 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site