Re: uninterruptible sleep lockups

[Anthony DiSante <theant@nodivisions.com>]

Chris Friesen wrote:
>>> There has been some discussion that these hung
>>> states could be "fixed", but that's absolutely
>>> positively incorrect.
>>
>> That's one of the things I asked a few messages ago.  Some people on 
>> the list were saying that it'd be "really hard" and would "require a 
>> lot of bookkeeping" to "fix" permanently-D-stated processes... which 
>> is completely different than "impossible."
> 
> 
> Nothing is "impossible".

Maybe where you live, but in my world some things are most certainly 
impossible.  Getting a 1MHz CPU to run at 1THz is impossible.  Having the 
kernel automatically install the latest firmware for a buggy device, without 
actually having the new firmware file, is impossible.  Turning your 17" LCD 
monitor into a 50" HDTV is impossible.

> Cracking SHA-256 isn't "impossible", it just 
> takes more computing power than exists on the face of the planet.

Thanks for proving my point.  That's a perfect example of the difference 
between "hard" and "impossible."

> Call it "infeasable" if you like.  It's theoretically possible, but the 
> amount of work and the overhead involved just are not realistic.

Again, that was one of my earlier questions, since some people here were 
saying "impossible" while other were saying "really hard."

-Anthony DiSante
http://nodivisions.com/