On Monday 10 December 2007 05:30, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10 2007, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> "Let me close with perhaps the most relevant remarks: the attached
> code has been in heavy testing and in production for months now.
> Thus there is nothing theoretical when I say it works, and the patch
> speaks for itself in terms of obvious correctness."
That is quite correct, even without the redirect the code passed all our
tests. Remember, we were testing for deadlock, not every possible
block IO configuration.
> We must have differing opinions on what obvious correctness is.
Yes we do. You appear to have missed the plot entirely. I suppose I
should remind you: this is about deadlock in _your_ subsystem that has
been creating bug reports for years. Block writeout deadlock. Caused
by a deficiency in _your_ subsystem.
Got a plan? Or does endless, pointless flaming feel more like progress
to you?
--
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]
