Weekly Edition
Return to the Kernel page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Quotes of the week
Ok, so now that I've insulted you and your pets (they're ugly!),
show me wrong, and then call me a d*ckhead. ("Linus - you're a
d*ckhead, and you didn't understand the problem, so you're a
_stupid_ d*ckhead. And my pet may be ugly, but yours _smells_
bad!").
-- Linus Torvalds
Or say "Uh, yeah, we're morons, and here's the much better patch, and we won't do that again".
Amazing! Your code, once plugged into the kernel proper, booted
fine on 5 different x86 testsystems, it booted fine an allyesconfig
kernel with MAXSMP and NR_CPUS=4096, it booted fine on allnoconfig
as well (and allmodconfig and on a good number of randconfigs as
well)....
-- Ingo Molnar
[B]ecause v1 of your code was so frustratingly and mind-blowingly stable in testing (breaking a long track record of v1 patches in this area of kernel), and because the perfect patch does not exist by definition, i thought i'd mention that after a long search i found and fixed a serious showstopper bug in your code: you used "1ul" in your macros, instead of the more proper "1UL" style. The ratio between the use of 1ul versus 1UL is 1:30 in the tree, so your choice of integer literals type suffix capitalization was deemed un-Linuxish, and was fixed up for good.
In anycase, it sounds like Tux3 is using many similar ideas. I
think you are on the right track. I will add one big note of
caution, drawing from my experience implementing HAMMER, because I
think you are going to hit a lot of the same issues.
-- Matthew Dillon. The whole
thread is an interesting read in filesystem design.
I spent 9 months designing HAMMER and 9 months implementing it. During the course of implementing it I wound up throwing away probably 80% of the original design outright.
The pure size of the -rc's _is_ making me a bit nervous,
though. Sure, it means that we are good at merging it all, but I
have to say that I sometimes wonder if we don't merge too much in
one go, and even our current (fairly short) release cycle is
actually too big.
-- Linus Torvalds
Anyway, that's a discussion for some other event.
I seem to be hearing a lot of silence over support for SSD devices.
I have this vague worry that there will be a large rollout of SSD
hardware and Linux will be found to have pants-around-ankles.
-- Andrew Morton(Log in to post comments)
Quotes of the week Posted Jul 31, 2008 3:35 UTC (Thu) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link] That dialog between Matthew Dillon and Daniel Phillips is, if you ask me, what free software at its best is all about. It's a wonderful sharing of ideas, comparing and contrasting each other's approaches to solving the same(ish) problem. Really nifty to read.
Quotes of the week: Andrew Morton's concerns re SSD Posted Jul 31, 2008 7:10 UTC (Thu) by alonz (subscriber, #815) [Link] Well, I had tried to start a discussion on this issue... Back in 2004.Of course, I got no responses then.
Quotes of the week Posted Aug 1, 2008 6:58 UTC (Fri) by njs (subscriber, #40338) [Link] Andrew Morton: > I seem to be hearing a lot of silence over support for SSD devices. I have > this vague worry that there will be a large rollout of SSD hardware and > Linux will be found to have pants-around-ankles. Matthew Wilcox's reply is even more QOTWly: > I'm working on (and posting patches for) support for the Intel SSDs. > Honestly, our pants are hovering around the groin area at the moment.
Quotes of the week Posted Aug 7, 2008 12:19 UTC (Thu) by dmaxwell (guest, #14010) [Link] Matt Dillon comes off classy, constructive, and open minded. And it could be of help both to Linux and his project. And Theo wonders why people often don't listen even when he KNOWS he's right.........
|
|
||||||||||||