On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 11:55 +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
quoted text
> On Tuesday 17 Aug 2010 11:12:41 Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> > On Tuesday 17 Aug 2010 11:01:09 Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> > > I'm quite sure that both of these issues have been discussed already.
> >
> > Ok, I obviosuly missed it. Do you have a pointer perhaps?
> 
> I have found the thread. It has been discussed but I do not find it had a
> clear outcome. At the end Eric has proposed the heartbeat/in-progress option
> (which IMHO can only work together with a timeout) to which no-one objected. I
> did not find other arguments against such functionality solid.

You'll notice that anything anyone I respected objected to, even if I
didn't agree, I dropped or replaced.  I had such code.  We can bring it
back.  But the objection was: 'what's the point?"  They believed that
everyone would just do it in a library and end up in the 'block forever'
situation we have today.

-Eric

--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/