Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was:Strange

Alan Cox
2000-11-04T20:43:07Z

> > Instead, if apache had just done the thing it wanted to do in the first
> > place, the wake-one accept() semantics would have happened a hell of a
> > lot earlier.
>
> counter-example: freebsd had wake-one semantics a few years before linux.

And Im sure apache authors can use the utsname() syscall 8)