From: Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>
To: Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <christoph@lameter.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Linux Preemptive patch success 2.4.10-pre4 + lots of other patches
Date: 07 Sep 2001 01:36:15 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <999840977.845.21.camel@phantasy> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20010907052850Z16200-26183+115@humbolt.nl.linux.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0109062135280.1643-100000@devel.office> <20010907051231Z16200-26183+114@humbolt.nl.linux.org> <999840042.1164.14.camel@phantasy> <20010907052850Z16200-26183+115@humbolt.nl.linux.org>
On Fri, 2001-09-07 at 01:35, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> Sorry, I thought that was self-evident. It's not a change, it's an option.
Oh, yes. It is completely an option -- although I would like to see it
be the norm :)
> Yes, violent agreement. OK, I disagree with your assessment that it's
> a huge change. Big in effect yes, but not in structural impact.
Right, actually I agree with you. That was my point about using SMP
lock points. Since it uses the existing structure for SMP concurrency,
the patch is small -- but its effects are pretty large. Its a fairly
big deal.
> And you're right, I did think you were arguing against your own patch.
No, but I had to take that approach as it was suggested the patch be
merged for 2.4.10!
I am glad you take a pro side to the preemption issue. Hopefully I can
get some continued support and see some work towards inclusion in 2.5.
Any help is appreciated.
Sorry for the confusion.
--
Robert M. Love
rml at ufl.edu
rml at tech9.net
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-09-07 5:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <999835218.2456.16.camel@phantasy>
2001-09-07 4:36 ` Linux Preemptive patch success 2.4.10-pre4 + lots of other patches Christoph Lameter
2001-09-07 4:45 ` Robert Love
2001-09-07 5:19 ` Daniel Phillips
2001-09-07 5:20 ` Robert Love
2001-09-07 5:35 ` Daniel Phillips
2001-09-07 5:36 ` Robert Love [this message]
2001-09-07 12:56 ` Chris Ricker
2001-09-07 12:31 ` safemode
2001-09-07 2:44 Christoph Lameter
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=999840977.845.21.camel@phantasy \
--to=rml@tech9.net \
--cc=christoph@lameter.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=phillips@bonn-fries.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.