>>>> Those that wrote the DSM code state that it has little impact on the
>>>> rest of the kernel. Do you claim that they lie?
>>>
>>> Yup, I sure do.
I still expect you to apologize to the DIPC authors. You've accused
them of lying and bloat without even looking at the code. Unlike you,
they actually wrote some code.
>> I just looked at the patch. It is almost small enough to attach below.
>
> So what? Do you think it is done? Have you thought for one second about
> the failure model that the DSM stuff has? Have you looked at any of the
> many DSM systems in detail to see how they do it?
Do you think I care? I'll guess the user could catch SIGSEGV.
This is clearly not a major issue with the network monitoring
tool that seems to be the showcase DIPC application.
>> The next time you feel compelled to spew flames at a developer,
>> have the decency to read the code first.
>
> The next time you feel compelled to spew opinions on this list, have the
> decency to go educate yourself first.
>
> Maybe you ought to go write some code instead of flaming away here.
You too. You've written about as much kernel code as me.
I don't go around flaming developers on a regular basis though.
I suggest you drop this and just publicly apologize to the DIPC authors.
-
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/