From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: thread-index: AcQVpEvMpcDkJNvFSympM+d++tdkJw== Envelope-to: paul@sumlocktest.fsnet.co.uk Delivery-date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 01:53:10 +0000 Message-ID: <017601c415a4$4bcf1960$d100000a@sbs2003.local> X-Mailer: Microsoft CDO for Exchange 2000 From: "Rusty Russell" Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message Importance: normal Priority: normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.0 To: Cc: "Linus Torvalds" , "Andrew Morton" , , "Linux Kernel Mailing List" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] kthread_create In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 02 Jan 2004 19:43:37 -0800." Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:41:26 +0100 Sender: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Mar 2004 15:41:26.0921 (UTC) FILETIME=[4C201F90:01C415A4] In message you write: > On Sat, 3 Jan 2004, Rusty Russell wrote: > > > In message you write: > > > Rusty, you still have to use global static data when there is no need. > > > > And you're still putting obscure crap in the task struct when there's > > no need. Honestly, I'd be ashamed to post such a patch. > > Ashamed !? Take a look at your original patch and then define shame. You > had a communication mechanism that whilst being a private 1<->1 > communication among two tasks, relied on a single global message > strucure, lock and mutex. Still do. It's *simple*, and I refuse to be ashamed of that. My words were harsh, but I completely disagree with you. I believe you are wrong. I would never have coded it the way you did. I read your code and I still think you are wrong, and find your code both bloated and ugly. It's not about space, it's about taste. And placing random stuff in an unrelated structure because you can't think of a better way to do it is TASTELESS. If it were the only way, it might be forgivable, but it's not, and I far prefer a little localized messiness to global messiness. Now, on something we do agree: I dislike the global structure myself. By all means try changing the code to use a pipe between child and parent for the initfn result. But I've told you that I will not submit any solution which adds to a generic structure for a specific problem. I'm very, very sorry this has gotten a little heated: I generally enjoy our discussions. But I don't think I should have to say "no" four times. Rusty. -- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.