Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
Deadline scheduling: coming soon?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 27, 2013
ACPI for ARM?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 21, 2013
GNU virtual private Ethernet
Is this directed to the above mentioned "pretentious" people? If yes, could you please point out which of my comments was disrespectful here?
Posted Feb 23, 2010 13:56 UTC (Tue) by corbet (editor, #1)
Posted Feb 23, 2010 19:09 UTC (Tue) by chad.netzer (subscriber, #4257)
The LWN comment section is not well suited to these kinds of opinionated
"discussions", since there are no tools to control the threading, collapsing
and rating of comments, etc. Hence, the same points keep getting
fruitlessly reargued. Not sure its fixable, but a simple filter *might* help
with signal to noise for those that want to have a novel discussion.
Meanwhile, I'd rather talk about things like which of these fixes actually
solve an issue for people. We have been testing #36 for a short while,
since the umount bug it fixes was actually hitting us in practice. It'd be
nice to talk about something like who here is actually using and testing the
2.6.32.y series, and what issues have they had?
Posted Feb 23, 2010 23:50 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
... or, rather, the only wrong thing is an explosion of almost totally
idle ext4 direct I/O kernel threads: one per CPU per sb. That's 96 or
something on my machine. I only want direct I/O for *one filesystem*
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds