[lkml]   [2007]   [Feb]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2 of 4] Introduce i386 fibril scheduling

On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Zach Brown wrote:
> For syscalls, sure.
> The kevent work incorporates Uli's desire to have more data per event. Have
> you read his OLS stuff? It's been a while since I did so I've lost the
> details of why he cares to have more.

You'd still do that as _arguments_ to the system call, not as the return

Also, quite frankly, I tend to find Uli over-designs things. The whole
disease of "make things general" is a CS disease that some people take to

The good thing about generic code is not that it solves some generic
problem. The good thing about generics is that they mean that you can
_avoid_ solving other problems AND HAVE LESS CODE. But some people seem to
think that "generic" means that you have to have tons of code to handle
all the possible cases, and that *completely* misses the point.

We want less code. The whole (and really, the _only_) point of the
fibrils, at least as far as I'm concerned, is to *not* have special code
for aio_read/write/whatever.

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: 2007-02-05 21:45    [W:0.116 / U:27.860 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site