On Thu, December 22, 2005 6:53 pm, Randy.Dunlap said:
> Andrew can surely answer that, but it could be something as
> simple as wanting to build a more stable kernel (one without
> so much churn), so that things have time to mature and
> improve without breaking so many other things...
>
> This (current) is a hectic development cycle style.
Sure, its probably that simple. Just seems like the techincal arguments
clearly support adding a mutex.
Sean
-
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/
- References:
- [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
- Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
- Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
- Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
- Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
- Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
- Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
- Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
- Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
- Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
- Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
[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]