Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 14:24:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 14:24:32 -0400 Received: from vasquez.zip.com.au ([203.12.97.41]:3844 "EHLO vasquez.zip.com.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 14:24:27 -0400 Message-ID: <3BC1EF61.9ECD3273@zip.com.au> Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 11:24:33 -0700 From: Andrew Morton X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.10-ac7 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: george anzinger CC: Helge Hafting , Mike Fedyk , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: low-latency patches In-Reply-To: <20011006010519.A749@draal.physics.wisc.edu> <3BBEA8CF.D2A4BAA8@zip.com.au> <20011006150024.C2625@mikef-linux.matchmail.com> <3BC1A062.6E953751@idb.hist.no> <3BC1E53E.2A67202A@mvista.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org george anzinger wrote: > > Well, no, but do we want to improve as kernel writers, or just stay > "hackers"? If low latency was a concern the same way lack of dead locks > and avoiding OOPs is today, don't you think we would be better coders? > As for me, I want to shoot for the higher goal. Even if I miss, I will > still have accomplished more than if I had shot for the mundane. Right. It needs to be a conscious, planned decision: "from now on, holding a lock for more than 500 usecs is a bug". So someone, be it Linus, "the community" or my Mum needs to decide that this is a feature which the kernel will henceforth support. It's a new feature - it should be treated as such. - - 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/