On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Ingo Oeser wrote:I certainly don't mind it if we have some tighter guarantees, but what I'd want is: - keep it simple. Let's face it, Linux has never ever given those guarantees before, and it's not is if anybody has really cared. Even now, the issue seems to be more about paper standards conformance than anything else. - I get worried about people playing around with the dirty bit in particular. We have had some really rather nasty bugs here. Most of which are totally impossible to trigger under normal loads (for example the old random-access utorrent writable mmap issue from about a year ago). So these two issues - the big red danger signs flashing in my brain, coupled with the fact that no application has apparently ever really noticed in the last 15 years - just makes it a case where I'd like each step of the way to be obvious and simple and no larger than really absolutely necessary. Linus --
| David Miller | Re: Slow DOWN, please!!! |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 001/196] Chinese: Add the known_regression URI to the HOWTO |
| Bart Van Assche | Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel |
| Heiko Carstens | Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23 -- sys_fallocate |
git: | |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Jan Engelhardt | Re: iptables very slow after commit 784544739a25c30637397ace5489eeb6e15d7d49 |
