On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 04:14:14PM +0000, Pavel Machek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Hi! > > > > I think what you are not hearing, and what everyone else is saying > > > (INCLUDING Linus), is that for most programmers, state machines are > > > much, much harder to program, understand, and debug compared to > > > multi-threaded code. You may disagree (were you a MacOS 9 programmer > > > in another life?), and it may not even be true for you if you happen > > > to be one of those folks more at home with Scheme continuations, for > > > example. But it is true that for most kernel programmers, threaded > > > programming is much easier to understand, and we need to engineer the > > > kernel for what will be maintainable for the majority of the kernel > > > development community. > > > > I understand that - and I totally agree. > > But when more complex, more bug-prone code results in higher performance > > - that must be used. We have linked lists and binary trees - the latter > > No-o. Kernel is not designed like that. > > Often, more complex and slightly faster code exists, and we simply use > slower variant, because it is fast enough. > > 10% gain in speed is NOT worth major complexity increase.
Should I create a patch to remove rb-tree implementation? That practice is stupid IMO. > Pavel > -- > (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek > (cesky, pictures) > http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- Evgeniy Polyakov - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
