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 --
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 002/196] Chinese: rephrase English introduction in HOWTO |
| Tarkan Erimer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Andrew Morton | Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23 -- sys_fallocate |
| Greg KH | Re: [AppArmor 39/45] AppArmor: Profile loading and manipulation, pathname matching |
git: | |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 03/37] dccp: List management for new feature negotiation |
| Arjan van de Ven | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Jarek Poplawski | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Jarek Poplawski | Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
