-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 10:58:28AM -0800, jonathan@dsg.stanford.edu wrote:
> 
> In message <6A74260B-95A0-4BEE-A230-186D5DFE5102@shagadelic.org>,
> Jason Thorpe writes:
> 
> >
> >On Jan 4, 2006, at 9:38 AM, jonathan@dsg.stanford.edu wrote:
> >
> >> codepaths. Thus, RAS is not suitable for use *inside* a kernel.
> >
> >Actually, it is possible to use RAS inside a kernel, and Solaris does  
> >(did) it on some platforms for low-level mutex operations on  
> >uniprocessor systems.
> 
> Uh,  Jason, I said "not suitable", not "not possible".
> 
Now that you started this discussion, "not suitable" is interpreted by
many people (me included) as "not possible".

Webster online dictionary for "suitable" gives a definition "adapted to
a use or purpose". In this reading "ras is not suitable for in-kernel
use" -> "ras is not adapted to be used in-kernel" -> "it is not possible
to use ras in-kernel" (how can you use it, if it is not adapted?)

Other definitions of "suitable" are:  b : satisfying propriety : PROPER
c : ABLE, QUALIFIED

And for "adapted"/"adapt" it says "to make fit (as for a specific or
new use or situation) often by modification".

I admit that I'm not a native English speaker, but consider that there are
at least two persons (Jason and me) who read "not suitable" as "not possible".
Webster seems to corroborate our interpretation.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDvCHwFtofFpCIfhMRA5lQAJkB+Qmgp+dvsVCR85SIu0SHVzxbVgCeI4QW
XAtnKlUivss+7BuctO47ims=
=1O/l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----