lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
    > Hi.
    >
    > On Monday 20 February 2006 20:02, Lee Revell wrote:
    > > On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 10:39 +0100, Matthias Hensler wrote:
    > > > > It is slightly slower,
    > > >
    > > > Sorry, but that is just unacceptable.
    > >
    > > Um... suspend2 puts extra tests into really hot paths like fork(), which
    > > is equally unacceptable to many people.
    >
    > It doesn't.
    >
    > Fork is only a 'really hot path' if you have a fork bomb running. The
    > scheduler is a really hot path (which Suspend2 patches don't touch, by the
    > way).

    Heh, tell that to Andrew and people running configure scripts. With
    attitude like this, do you wonder why you can't get a patch merged?

    Pavel
    --
    Thanks, Sharp!
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2006-02-20 14:33    [W:4.276 / U:0.248 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site