On Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 08:40:19PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> With all respect, even if i had read it before, i'd have done mempool.c
> the same way as it is now. (but i'd obviously have Cc:-ed Ben on it during
> its development.) I'd like to sum up Ben's patch (Ben please correct me if
> i misrepresent your patch in any way):
You're making the assumption that an incomplete patch is useless and
has no design pricipals behind it. What I disagree with is the design
of mempool, not the implementation. The design for reservations is to
use enforced accounting limits to achive the effect of seperate memory
pools. Mempool's design is to build seperate pools on top of existing
pools of memory. Can't you see the obvious duplication that implies?
The first implementation of the reservation patch is full of bogosities,
I'm the first one to admit that. But am I going to go off and write an
entirely new patch that fixes everything and gets the design right to
replace mempool? Not with the current rate of patches being ignored.
-ben
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 15 2001 - 21:00:30 EST