Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755486AbZDFW0S (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Apr 2009 18:26:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752378AbZDFW0G (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Apr 2009 18:26:06 -0400 Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com ([209.85.198.224]:25770 "EHLO rv-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752677AbZDFW0F (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Apr 2009 18:26:05 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer :thread-index:content-language; b=Dsy0gqXR5UI7Yrrq0ZMBSJ5GuxtB/cMj6rDsMak0WdOSmrdR9WB7GdGpGFR15DTnY6 tIyorz/qGmI80Op43tR8zasMZandmL6EJXt0PCwHPikl0oZE493bZzXFnQhDBxjKtTAZ IZ8H7jxklY6ujhf/4D0D+8VkvREHW+pZrcdnc= From: "Hua Zhong" To: "'Ray Lee'" Cc: "'Theodore Tso'" , "'Linus Torvalds'" , "'Jens Axboe'" , "'Linux Kernel Mailing List'" References: <1239022088-29002-1-git-send-email-jens.axboe@oracle.com> <20090406151054.GD5178@kernel.dk> <20090406183157.GD7376@mit.edu> <002501c9b6f3$f85b4910$e911db30$@com> <20090406211931.GB8586@mit.edu> <003001c9b6ff$a9259ce0$fb70d6a0$@com> <2c0942db0904061504l6504934bi446f7425fcd38470@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <2c0942db0904061504l6504934bi446f7425fcd38470@mail.gmail.com> Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/8][RFC] IO latency/throughput fixes Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 15:25:36 -0700 Message-ID: <003401c9b706$9c4c1b50$d4e451f0$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Acm3A6K/smYfFB80QlyzKagJYAKDigAAh1PA Content-Language: en-us Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1693 Lines: 36 > Speaking as another embedded Linux guy, I don't update kernels on my > embedded platforms willy-nilly, nor do I design a library that relies > upon some default behavior without specifying it explicitly. That's > just one of the prices of doing embedded development. > > Your argument seems to be that someone may be relying upon default > kernel behavior and, at the same time, is willing to continually > upgrade their kernel. I'd argue that person is, y'know, nuts. If > they're willing to upgrade their kernel on something that has that > stringent of requirements, then they should be willing to force a > mount option at the same time. You are implying that if someone upgrades their kernel, then he must 1) upgrade it continuously and 2) without any scrutiny. Both are untrue. There are certain things people expect from the kernel, such as no ABI changes. To me ext3 default option falls into this category. And even if they are nuts, you can't prove they don't exist, especially given how many software already depends on the ordered mode. You also conveniently forgot to quote my question about security. Both are valid questions, not something I just totally made up. > If they're willing to upgrade their kernel blindly, then they > shouldn't be doing embedded development. Linus once said that if you don't understand "not breaking user space" then you should not be doing kernel development. Or something to that extent. -- 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/