"Jeff V. Merkey" wrote:
> "David S. Miller" wrote:
>
> > Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 18:14:03 -0600
> > From: "Jeff V. Merkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > Linus' apparently did not understand this, or he would have
> > immediately realized that double locking was always generating a
> > second non-cacheable memory reference for every lock being taken
> > and released.
> >
> > Jeff, after working together with Linus for 6 or so years myself, I
> > would make a large wager that Linus understands these issues much
> > better than even you.
> >
> > But then again, as previously stated, I don't take you very seriously,
> > but I fear that there are a few on this list who still do.
> >
> > Later,
> > David S. Miller
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> David,
>
> You shouldn't fault me because I worked on commercial software for so
> long. I did the hardware profiling of this stuff in 1993 -- long before
> Linux was even doing SMP. I spent many sleepless nights in Building F
> on the Provo campus comparing 'mov <addr>, 0' and "lock bts, <addr>' to
> see what would happen. Long before you guys had even written your first
> spinlock ......
>
> Jeff
Also -- your loyalty is admirable -- but that's all it is.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
