From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 06:34:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Davidsen Subject: Re: 2.5.68-mm2 In-Reply-To: <1051295252.9767.143.camel@localhost> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Robert Love Cc: "Randy.Dunlap" , bcrl@redhat.com, akpm@digeo.com, mbligh@aracnet.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On 25 Apr 2003, Robert Love wrote: > On Fri, 2003-04-25 at 14:20, Randy.Dunlap wrote: > > > > | 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. -- bill davidsen CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979. -- 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