On Thu Mar 5, 2026 at 10:10 AM CET, Matthew Brost wrote: > On Thu, Mar 05, 2026 at 09:38:16AM +0100, Philipp Stanner wrote: >> In the past discussions Danilo and I made it clear that more major >> features in _new_ patch series aimed at getting merged into drm/sched >> must be preceded by cleanup work to address some of the scheduler's >> major problems. > > Ah, we've moved to dictatorship quickly. Noted.
While Philipp and me generally share concerns about the scheduler in general, I prefer to speak for myself here, as my position is a bit more nuanced than that. I shared my view on this in detail in [1], so I will keep it very brief here. >From a maintainance perspective the concern is less about whether a particular change is correct or small in isolation, but about whether it moves the overall design in a direction that makes the existing issues harder to resolve subsequently. I.e. I think we should try to avoid accumulating new features or special paths on top of known design issues. (Please also note that those are general considerations; they are not meant to make any implications on this specific topic. Not least because I did not get to read through the whole thread yet.) Thanks, Danilo [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
