Re: [PATCH] putting old-style lock handling back into 2.2.10
david parsons (o.r.c@p.e.l.l.p.o.r.t.l.a.n.d.o.r.u.s)
5 Jul 1999 23:27:29 -0700
In article <linux.kernel.19990706070757.B3797@pcep-jamie.cern.ch>,
Jamie Lokier <lkd@tantalophile.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>david parsons wrote:
>> No. It's better for the kernel to try to keep the published
>> interfaces working, so that you don't have to replace user code
>> when you upgrade kernels.
>
>You'd rather have gdbm silently corrupt your databases due to bad
>locking? (If that's the case).
Look at the kernel source.
``Broken'', in this case, means ``old''.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/