Re: Scaling noise

[bill davidsen]

In article <20030903214233.24d3c902.davem@xxxxxxxxxx>,
David S. Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 18:52:49 -0700
| Larry McVoy <lm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| 
| > On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 03:50:31AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
| > > There are other arguments, such as how complex locking is, and how it will 
| > > never work correctly, but those are noise: it's pretty much done now, the 
| > > complexity is still manageable, and Linux has never been more stable.
| > 
| > yeah, right.  I'm not sure what you are smoking but I'll avoid your dealer.
| 
| I hate to enter these threads but...
| 
| The amount of locking bugs found in the core networking, ipv4, and
| ipv6 for a year or two in 2.4.x has been nearly nil.
| 
| If you're going to try and argue against supporting huge SMP
| to me, don't make locking complexity one of the arguments. :-)

If you count only "bugs" which cause hang or oops, sure. But just
because something works doesn't make it simple (or non-complex if you
prefer). But look at all the "lockless" changes and such in 2.4, and I
think you will agree that there have been a number and it is complex. I
don't think stable and complex are mutually exclusive in this case.

-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/