| |||||||||||||
BKL-free in 2.6.37 (maybe)BKL-free in 2.6.37 (maybe)Posted Sep 23, 2010 12:14 UTC (Thu) by NAR (subscriber, #1313)In reply to: BKL-free in 2.6.37 (maybe) by marcH Parent article: BKL-free in 2.6.37 (maybe) In such cases isn't it better to just let this suboptimal but tested and working code depend forever on an optional BKL? Do you mean tested 10 years ago and was possibly working 10 years ago? I remember an article here about a kernel module that wasn't even compiling for some 4 years and nobody noticed. Kernel developers sometimes boast about having features with a user community numbering in single digits. Do you think these extremely rarely used features are actually working with every kernel release?
(Log in to post comments)
BKL-free in 2.6.37 (maybe) Posted Sep 23, 2010 14:20 UTC (Thu) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link]
> Do you mean tested 10 years ago and was possibly working 10 years ago?
No: I meant in small but non-zero use still today. Replace "Amiga FFS" by a more appropriate example if required.
> I remember an article here about a kernel module that wasn't even compiling for some 4 years and nobody noticed.
I wasn't considering such extreme cases. This seems rather off-topic since nobody cares whether such broken modules use the BKL or not.
|
|||||||||||||