From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 08:34:27 -0700 From: "Martin J. Bligh" Subject: Re: 2.5.68-mm2 Message-ID: <16840000.1051371265@[10.10.2.4]> In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Bill Davidsen , Robert Love Cc: "Randy.Dunlap" , bcrl@redhat.com, akpm@digeo.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: >> > | The point is that even if bash is fixed it's desirable to address the >> > | issue in the kernel, other applications may well misbehave as well. >> > >> > So when would this ever end? >> >> Exactly what I was thinking. >> >> The kernel cannot be expected to cater to applications or make >> concessions (read: hacks) for certain behavior. If we offer a cleaner, >> improved interface which offers the performance improvement, we are >> done. Applications need to start using it. >> >> Of course, I am not arguing against optimizing the old interfaces or >> anything of that nature. I just believe we should not introduce hacks >> for application behavior. It is their job to do the right thing. > > I don't care much if the kernel does something to make an application run > better, that's an application problem. But if an application can do > something which hurts the performance of the system as a whole, then the > kernel should protect itself and the rest of the system. > > So I'm not advocating that the kernel cater to bash, just that doing > legitimate things with bash not have a disproportionate impact on the rest > of the system. It's not just bash ... it's most applications. M. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: aart@kvack.org