Re: low-latency patches

[Andrew Morton]

george anzinger wrote:
> 
> Well, no, but do we want to improve as kernel writers, or just stay
> "hackers"?  If low latency was a concern the same way lack of dead locks
> and avoiding OOPs is today, don't you think we would be better coders?
> As for me, I want to shoot for the higher goal.  Even if I miss, I will
> still have accomplished more than if I had shot for the mundane.

Right.  It needs to be a conscious, planned decision:  "from now on,
holding a lock for more than 500 usecs is a bug".

So someone, be it Linus, "the community" or my Mum needs to decide
that this is a feature which the kernel will henceforth support.

It's a new feature - it should be treated as such.

-