On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 08:43:04AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > [...] > > Demystify what? The casual observer need only read either your attempt
Here's the problem. You're a casual observer and obviously not paying attention. > at writing a scheduler, or my attempts at fixing the one we have, to see > that it was high time for someone with the necessary skills to step in. > Now progress can happen, which was _not_ happening before. I think that's inaccurate and there are plenty of folks that have that technical skill and background. The scheduler code isn't a deep mystery and there are plenty of good kernel hackers out here across many communities. Ingo isn't the only person on this planet to have deep scheduler knowledge. Priority heaps are not new and Solaris has had a pluggable scheduler framework for years. Con's characterization is something that I'm more prone to believe about how Linux kernel development works versus your view. I think it's a great shame to have folks like Bill Irwin and Con to have waste time trying to do something right only to have their ideas attack, then copied and held as the solution for this kind of technical problem as complete reversal of technical opinion as it suits a moment. This is just wrong in so many ways. It outlines the problems with Linux kernel development and questionable elistism regarding ownership of certain sections of the kernel code. I call it "churn squat" and instances like this only support that view which I would rather it be completely wrong and inaccurate instead. bill - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/