lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Oct]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
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 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/

\
 
 \ /
  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