>
>
> On Mon, 6 Sep 1999, David Weinehall wrote:
> > On Sat, 4 Sep 1999, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > >
> > > IKD will never be merged because impact lots of common code. I want to be
> > > sure to only fix (and not add 8) bugs with IKD.
> >
> > Ok. Are there ANY parts of IKD that are worth to merge, that don't disrupt
> > the main code-paths when not compiled in?
>
> The SMP automatic deadlock detection parts of the IKD are extremely
> simple, impact none of the mainline code, and are occasionally very
> useful.
>
> I've certainly considered integrating those, although if I do (or
> preferably if somebody else does ;) I suspect I'd be happier just leaving
> them on all the time rather than making them a config option - they are
> _that_ non-intrusive.
I've been looking through the IKD for other interesting things, and I
thought that we would probably also want the CONFIG_MEMLEAK option in the
kernel. What's your opinion on this one? When I get an answer, I'll
extract the applicable parts (either just the deadlock detection code, or
both of them), port them to v2.3, and then post a patch here. If that's ok
with everyone, that is...
/David Weinehall
_ _
// David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /> Northern lights wander \\
// Project MCA Linux hacker // Dance across the winter sky //
\> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ </ Full colour fire </
-
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/