linux-kernel - Re: [patch 00/13] Syslets, "Threadlets", generic AIO support, v3

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200702271715.31184.a1426z@gawab.com>
Date:	Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:15:31 +0300
From:	Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 00/13] Syslets, "Threadlets", generic AIO support, v3

Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 01:28:32PM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > Obviously there are bugs, it is simply how things work.
> > And debugging state machine code has exactly the same complexity as
> > debugging multi-threading code - if not less...
>
> Evgeniy,
>
> I think what you are not hearing, and what everyone else is saying
> (INCLUDING Linus),

Excluding possibly many others.

> is that for most programmers, state machines are
> much, much harder to program, understand, and debug compared to
> multi-threaded code.

That's why you introduce an infrastructure that hides all the nitty-gritty 
plumbing, and makes it easy to use.

> You may disagree (were you a MacOS 9 programmer
> in another life?), and it may not even be true for you if you happen
> to be one of those folks more at home with Scheme continuations, for
> example.

Personal attacks are really rather unhelpful/unscientific.

> But it is true that for most kernel programmers, threaded
> programming is much easier to understand, and we need to engineer the
> kernel for what will be maintainable for the majority of the kernel
> development community.

What's probably true is that, for a kernel to stay competitive you need two 
distinct traits:

1. Stability
2. Performance

And you can't get that, by arguing that the kernel development community 
doesn't have the brains to code for performance, which I dearly doubt.

So, instead of using intimidating language to force one's opinion thru, 
especially when it comes from those in control, why not have a democratic 
vote?


Thanks!

--
Al

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