> On 1 Jul 2000, Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote:
> >
> > Khimenko Victor just explained to you that this patch is broken by design,
> > so it isn't acceptable on long term.
> >
> > If you want to start recoding it the right way, feel free to do it,
> > but do not bother people that know it must not be included
> > saying that it should be because it work for you.
> >
> > Understand that even if it improve things for the user it
> > may broke things for the kernel.
[...]
> I was hoping to encourage people to try it. Because I think if more
> people tried it they'd realize the value.
Many people have tryed it and already realize the gain of this patch.
[...]
> I am a heavy user of Linux however, and I hope that the development
> community is not disinterested in input from the user community. If that is
> not the case, then Linux is dead.
I think people here fully understand the issue, if they did not,
this thread would be already dead.
[...]
> If you ignore the needs of the end users, pretty soon you don't have a
> user community anymore.
read above.
> But for me alone? Don't fix it, leave it broken if it looks prettier.
> But I would suggest that people who haven't tried the patch because they don't
> have a need for realtime performance, particularly if they have occasionally
> heavily loaded boxes, try it.
This thread is all about fixing theses latency problem, however,
understand that the patch you are talking about aren't the right
way to do.
-- -- Yoann http://www.mandrakesoft.com/~yoann/ It is well known that M$ product don't make a free() after a malloc(), the unix community wish them good luck for their future development.- 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/