Daniel Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I'm not going to ignore any of the discussion, but it would be nice to
> hear Andrew's, or Linus's specific objections..
I have no specific objections - this all started out from my general
observation that things like process-context IRQ handlers and
priority-inheriting mutexes have had a tough reception in the past, and are
likely to do so in the future as well.
This thing will be discussed on a patch-by-patch basis. Contra this email
thread, we won't consider it from an all-or-nothing perspective.
(That being said, it's already a mighty task to decrypt your way through
the maze-like implementation of spin_lock(), lock_kernel(),
smp_processor_id() etc, etc. I really do wish there was some way we could
clean up/simplify that stuff before getting in and adding more source-level
complexity).
-
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]
