[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1282058869.21419.134.camel@acb20005.ipt.aol.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 11:27:49 -0400
From: Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
To: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@...hos.com>
Cc: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>,
"torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"viro@...iv.linux.org.uk" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michael Kerrisk <michael.kerrisk@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] notification tree - try 37!
On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 11:55 +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 Aug 2010 11:12:41 Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> > On Tuesday 17 Aug 2010 11:01:09 Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> > > I'm quite sure that both of these issues have been discussed already.
> >
> > Ok, I obviosuly missed it. Do you have a pointer perhaps?
>
> I have found the thread. It has been discussed but I do not find it had a
> clear outcome. At the end Eric has proposed the heartbeat/in-progress option
> (which IMHO can only work together with a timeout) to which no-one objected. I
> did not find other arguments against such functionality solid.
You'll notice that anything anyone I respected objected to, even if I
didn't agree, I dropped or replaced. I had such code. We can bring it
back. But the objection was: 'what's the point?" They believed that
everyone would just do it in a library and end up in the 'block forever'
situation we have today.
-Eric
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists