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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox