Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 15:46:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 15:46:40 -0400 Received: from perninha.conectiva.com.br ([200.250.58.156]:45523 "EHLO perninha.conectiva.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 15:46:40 -0400 Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 16:51:51 -0300 (BRT) From: Rik van Riel X-X-Sender: riel@duckman.distro.conectiva To: Linus Torvalds Cc: jbradford@dial.pipex.com, , , , , , , Subject: Re: [OT] 2.6 not 3.0 - (WAS Re: [PATCH-RFC] 4 of 4 - New problem logging macros, SCSI RAIDdevice) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-spambait: aardvark@kernelnewbies.org X-spammeplease: aardvark@nl.linux.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 867 Lines: 27 On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote: > The memory management issues would qualify for 3.0, but my argument > there is really that I doubt everybody really is happy yet. I'm absolutely convinced some people won't be happy, simply because of the fundamental limitations of global page replacement. However, Andrew Morton has done a great job and the 2.5 VM seems to be looking as good as anything we've had before. For me 3.0 arguments would be Ingo's threading stuff, not anything else. regards, Rik -- A: No. Q: Should I include quotations after my reply? http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ - 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/