From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S273836AbRIRE5h>; Tue, 18 Sep 2001 00:57:37 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S273835AbRIRE51>; Tue, 18 Sep 2001 00:57:27 -0400
Received: from perninha.conectiva.com.br ([200.250.58.156]:44042 "HELO
	perninha.conectiva.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP
	id <S273837AbRIRE5N>; Tue, 18 Sep 2001 00:57:13 -0400
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 00:33:15 -0300 (BRT)
From: Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo@conectiva.com.br>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>,
        Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4.10-pre11
In-Reply-To: <20010918065423.W698@athlon.random>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0109180031210.7152-100000@freak.distro.conectiva>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 11:53:10PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > Don't you agree that your code can introduce new stability bugs ?
> 
> not anything that can corrupt randomly your hd.

Sure, the old code did not corrupt hd's randomly, did it?

Let me redo the question: Don't you think the old stinky and slow code was
reasonably stable ? :)