quoted
but it's not as if it's really going to affect performance
in real cases.
Since these circumstances are creatable by any user, we have
to consider the cases caused by malicious entities.
OK. But then the whole gc thing is already broken, since a user can
DoS socket creation/destruction.
I'm all for fixing this gc mess that we have now. But please don't
expect me to be the one who's doing it.
Miklos
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:55:24 +0200
I'm all for fixing this gc mess that we have now. But please don't
expect me to be the one who's doing it.
Don't worry, I only expect you to make the situation worse :-)
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 04:02:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:55:24 +0200
quoted
I'm all for fixing this gc mess that we have now. But please don't
expect me to be the one who's doing it.
Don't worry, I only expect you to make the situation worse :-)
In any event, I'll try to find some time to look more at your patch.
But just like you don't want to be expected to rewrite the AF_UNIX GC
code, you can't expect me to go right to your patch right when you
want me to.
I am one human being, and I depend upon other developers to help me
out with patch review and so on. If nobody else wants to review your
patch that doesn't work out so well for me.
Your behavior also tends to make me (and others) put your patch near
the end of the todo list rather than near the top. Fix your attitude
and people will enjoy reviewing your patches that much more. Reviewing
your work will become something to look forward to rather than a chore.
Thanks.