Re: [PATCH] putting old-style lock handling back into 2.2.10

Jamie Lokier (lkd@tantalophile.demon.co.uk)
Tue, 6 Jul 1999 07:07:57 +0200

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Andi Kleen: "Re: Synchronous board drivers"
Previous message: Steve Underwood: "Re: Whither this goesteth? -->Re: nice troll (was: All this"

david parsons wrote:
> No. It's better for the kernel to try to keep the published
> interfaces working, so that you don't have to replace user code
> when you upgrade kernels.

You'd rather have gdbm silently corrupt your databases due to bad
locking? (If that's the case).

-- Jamie

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Andi Kleen: "Re: Synchronous board drivers"
Previous message: Steve Underwood: "Re: Whither this goesteth? -->Re: nice troll (was: All this"