locks and kernel randomness...

[K. Macy]

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 4:23 PM, John-Mark Gurney <jmg at funkthat.com> wrote:
> K. Macy wrote this message on Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 15:33 -0800:
>> > If someone does find a performance issue w/ my patch, I WILL work with
>> > them on a solution, but I will not work w/ people who make unfounded
>> > claims about the impact of this work...
>> >
>>
>> <shrug> ... The concerns may be exaggerated, but they aren't
>> unfounded. Not quite the same thing, but no one wants to spend the
>
> Till someone shows me code in the kernel tree where this is even close
> to a performance problem, it is unfounded...  I've asked, and no one
> has


In these sorts of situations the thing to do is to ask for case where
performance would be adversely effected and the burden would be on you
to show that they're not. If there are none forthcoming, then you're
done.

>
> I'm not discussing this until you read and reply to my original email,
> since it's clear that my original email's contents has been ignored in
> this thread...
>

A patch for review on phabricator would do much to alleviate any
concerns. I apologize if I missed the reference to that.

-K