In <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000701210612.260J-100000@invisible.eskimo.com> Robert Dinse (nanook@eskimo.com) wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Jul 2000, Felix von Leitner wrote:
>>
>> How can you be so arrogant to try to blackmail Linus into adopting your
>> favourite toy patches by claiming the user base will run away if he
>> doesn't?
> Pointing out that there is benefit to the larger community, not just those
> that happen to have a critical need for low latency, is hardly, "trying to
> blackmail Linus into adopting my favorite toy patches".
Perhpahs he confused you and signees of "a joint letter" ...
>> If someone does run away, he is better served with Windows anyway.
> And you accuse me of being arrogant?
>> Please get yourself an OS book and understand the concept of "preemption
>> point". If you break up a critical region by inserting an insertion
>> point, you create deadlocks.
>>
>> Felix
> I understand the concept of critical code regions. You make the
> assumption that the chosen premption points are arbitrary. Have you looked at
> the patch? Have you tried it?
Why I need to ? OF COURSE chosen preemtion point ARE arbitratry. THIS REQUIRES
NO PROOF. It's default. ONLY when you have REAL PROOF that points are not
arbitrary they are not arbitrary. And no, benchmark is not considered to be
a proof. That's basically what Linus said and that SO obvious for any developer
that it does not need any explanation. Why it's not obvious for you I'm not
know.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 07 2000 - 21:00:10 EST