Mike Waychison wrote:
> You wouldn't put a bdflush daemon in userspace either would you? The
> loop in question is just that; (overly simplified):
>
> while (1) {
> f = ask_kernel_if_anything_looks_inactive();
> if (f) {
> try_to_umount(f);
> continue;
> } else {
> sleep(x seconds);
> }
> }
>
> My point is, if this is the only active action done by userspace, why
> open it up to being broken?
You're still using arguments -against- putting software in the kernel.
You don't decrease software's chances of "being broken" by putting it in
the kernel, the opposite occurs -- you increase the likelihood of making
the entire system unstable. This is one point that Solaris and Win32
have both missed :)
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo _at_ vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Follow-Ups:
- Re: [autofs] [RFC] Towards a Modern AutofsMike Waychison
- Re: [autofs] [RFC] Towards a Modern AutofsAndi Kleen
- Re: [autofs] [RFC] Towards a Modern AutofsH. Peter Anvin
- Re: [autofs] [RFC] Towards a Modern AutofsMike Waychison
- Re: [autofs] [RFC] Towards a Modern AutofsJeff Garzik
- Re: [autofs] [RFC] Towards a Modern AutofsMike Waychison
- Prev by Date: Re: Blank Screen in 2.6.0
- Next by Date: [Bug 1807] New: Kernel Panic with dmx3191d (Fatal exception in Interrupt Handler)
- Previous by thread: Re: [autofs] [RFC] Towards a Modern Autofs
- Next by thread: Re: [autofs] [RFC] Towards a Modern Autofs
- Indexes:[Main][Thread]