Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was:Strange

[Alan Cox]

> > Instead, if apache had just done the thing it wanted to do in the first
> > place, the wake-one accept() semantics would have happened a hell of a
> > lot earlier.
> 
> counter-example:  freebsd had wake-one semantics a few years before linux.

And Im sure apache authors can use the utsname() syscall 8)
-
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/