On Fri, Aug 18 2006, Daniel Phillips wrote: > nearly the same kind of function, and suffering very nearly the same kind > of problems we had in the block layer before mingo's mempool machinery > arrived? Correction, the block layer wasn't buggy (eg deadlock prone) before mempool, mempool was merely an abstraction that allowed to move this code out of the bio.c file since it was apparent that it had other possible users as well. -- Jens Axboe - 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:
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
- From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
- From: Daniel Phillips <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
- From: Daniel Phillips <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
- From: Daniel Phillips <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
- From: Daniel Phillips <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] NFS: Replace null dentries that appear in readdir's list [try #2]
- Next by Date: [PATCH 4/6] Have x86_64 use add_active_range() and free_area_init_nodes
- Previous by thread: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
- Next by thread: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
- Index(es):
 |