Trond Myklebust writes:
> It started from a desire to extend the existing implementations to
> support new features such as asynchronous notification. Currently that
> sort of thing is impossible unless your developer-super-powers include
> the ability to herd 24 different subsystem maintainers into working
> together on a solution.
Well, maybe the slow paths could be unified somewhat, and then these
extra features could be added in the slow paths. I would support
that. I certainly don't support replacing the current optimized
fast-path implementations with a lowest-common-denominator thing like
Ben was proposing.
Paul.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
