> two weeks stale, but your take on the EVMS story is incorrect. The
> EVMS developers (that is, Kevin) sent out a nice, conciliatory email,
> the project sputtered on for a while, then basically died.
This is perfectly normal. It was outevolved and ran out of people who
cared enough to
On Saturday 28 July 2007 14:06, Diego Calleja wrote:
> El Sat, 28 Jul 2007 13:07:05 -0700, Bill Huey (hui) escribió:
> The main problem is clearly that no scheduler was clearly better than
> the other. This remembers me of the LVM2/MD vs EVMS in the 2.5 days -
> both of them were good enought, but
On Saturday 28 July 2007 14:06, Diego Calleja wrote:
El Sat, 28 Jul 2007 13:07:05 -0700, Bill Huey (hui) escribió:
The main problem is clearly that no scheduler was clearly better than
the other. This remembers me of the LVM2/MD vs EVMS in the 2.5 days -
both of them were good enought, but
two weeks stale, but your take on the EVMS story is incorrect. The
EVMS developers (that is, Kevin) sent out a nice, conciliatory email,
the project sputtered on for a while, then basically died.
This is perfectly normal. It was outevolved and ran out of people who
cared enough to continue
On Thursday 02 August 2007 13:03, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > [...]
> > It does not matter [whose] code gets merged.
> > What matters is that the problem gets solved and that the Linux
> > kernel innovates forward.
> > [...]
>
> This attitude has
On Thursday 02 August 2007 13:03, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
It does not matter [whose] code gets merged.
What matters is that the problem gets solved and that the Linux
kernel innovates forward.
[...]
This attitude has risks over the long
Hi -
> My concern is that only "get my line of code merged" is seen as "the
> ultimate thing". It's more than that. Linux is about collaboration [...]
Unfortunately, this spirit of collaboration sometimes gets lost in
practice when feedback is asymmetric, obnoxious, or absent.
- FChE
-
To
Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [...]
> It does not matter [whose] code gets merged.
> What matters is that the problem gets solved and that the Linux kernel
> innovates forward.
> [...]
This attitude has risks over the long term, if outsiders with fresh
ideas are discouraged.
On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 16:03 -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > [...]
> > It does not matter [whose] code gets merged.
> > What matters is that the problem gets solved and that the Linux kernel
> > innovates forward.
> > [...]
>
> This attitude has
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 12:05:01AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> I've had several cases myself where I spent quite some time solving a
> problem, just to get some random remark from someone smart on lkml
> saying "if you had done you would have had simple and superior solution>". Was I pissed
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 12:05:01AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
I've had several cases myself where I spent quite some time solving a
problem, just to get some random remark from someone smart on lkml
saying if you had done this simple thing you would have had this
simple and superior
Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
It does not matter [whose] code gets merged.
What matters is that the problem gets solved and that the Linux kernel
innovates forward.
[...]
This attitude has risks over the long term, if outsiders with fresh
ideas are discouraged. Risking
On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 16:03 -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
It does not matter [whose] code gets merged.
What matters is that the problem gets solved and that the Linux kernel
innovates forward.
[...]
This attitude has risks over the
Hi -
My concern is that only get my line of code merged is seen as the
ultimate thing. It's more than that. Linux is about collaboration [...]
Unfortunately, this spirit of collaboration sometimes gets lost in
practice when feedback is asymmetric, obnoxious, or absent.
- FChE
-
To unsubscribe
On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 11:40 -0700, Hua Zhong wrote:
> > > And, from a standpoint of ONGOING, long-term innovation: what matters
> > > is that brilliant, new ideas get rewarded one way or another.
> >
> > and in this case, the reward is that the idea got used and credit was
> > given
>
> You
> > And, from a standpoint of ONGOING, long-term innovation: what matters
> > is that brilliant, new ideas get rewarded one way or another.
>
> and in this case, the reward is that the idea got used and credit was
> given
You mean, when Ingo announced CFS he mentioned Con's name?
I really
On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 10:14 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 8/1/07, Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Let me repeat the key message:
> >
> > It does not matter who's code gets merged.
> > It does not matter who's code gets merged.
> > It does not matter who's code gets merged.
>
> has to get the blessing of the maintainer. On the other hand,
> as you just said, the maintainer has no such obligation.
Umm nope. As a maintainer if you feed Linus stuff you wrote that he
thinks is a bad idea it will not go in, and you'll get an explanation of
why.
The process isn't perfect
On 8/1/07, Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let me repeat the key message:
>
> It does not matter who's code gets merged.
> It does not matter who's code gets merged.
> It does not matter who's code gets merged.
> It does not matter who's code gets merged.
>
> What matters is that the
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
Let me repeat the key message:
It does not matter who's code gets merged.
It does not matter who's code gets merged.
It does not matter who's code gets merged.
It does not matter who's code gets merged.
What matters is that the problem gets solved and that the Linux
Hua Zhong wrote:
I don't think it's the code superiority that decided the fate of the two
schedulers. When CFS came out, the fate of SD was pretty much already
decided. The fact is that Linus trusts Ingo, and as such he wants to merge
Ingo's code. Of course I cannot say it's wrong, and Ingo's
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 23:16 -0700, Hua Zhong wrote:
> > Did Ingo have the obligation to improve Con's work? Definitely not.
> > Did Con have a right to get Ingo's improvements or
> > suggestions? Definitely not.
>
> Yes, and that's where the inequality is.
>
> Unless the maintainer does a really
> Did Ingo have the obligation to improve Con's work? Definitely not.
> Did Con have a right to get Ingo's improvements or
> suggestions? Definitely not.
Yes, and that's where the inequality is.
Unless the maintainer does a really bad job or pisses off Linus,
anyone who wants to merge his code
Did Ingo have the obligation to improve Con's work? Definitely not.
Did Con have a right to get Ingo's improvements or
suggestions? Definitely not.
Yes, and that's where the inequality is.
Unless the maintainer does a really bad job or pisses off Linus,
anyone who wants to merge his code into
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 23:16 -0700, Hua Zhong wrote:
Did Ingo have the obligation to improve Con's work? Definitely not.
Did Con have a right to get Ingo's improvements or
suggestions? Definitely not.
Yes, and that's where the inequality is.
Unless the maintainer does a really bad job
Hua Zhong wrote:
I don't think it's the code superiority that decided the fate of the two
schedulers. When CFS came out, the fate of SD was pretty much already
decided. The fact is that Linus trusts Ingo, and as such he wants to merge
Ingo's code. Of course I cannot say it's wrong, and Ingo's
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
Let me repeat the key message:
It does not matter who's code gets merged.
It does not matter who's code gets merged.
It does not matter who's code gets merged.
It does not matter who's code gets merged.
What matters is that the problem gets solved and that the Linux
On 8/1/07, Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let me repeat the key message:
It does not matter who's code gets merged.
It does not matter who's code gets merged.
It does not matter who's code gets merged.
It does not matter who's code gets merged.
What matters is that the problem
has to get the blessing of the maintainer. On the other hand,
as you just said, the maintainer has no such obligation.
Umm nope. As a maintainer if you feed Linus stuff you wrote that he
thinks is a bad idea it will not go in, and you'll get an explanation of
why.
The process isn't perfect
On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 10:14 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/1/07, Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let me repeat the key message:
It does not matter who's code gets merged.
It does not matter who's code gets merged.
It does not matter who's code gets merged.
It does not
And, from a standpoint of ONGOING, long-term innovation: what matters
is that brilliant, new ideas get rewarded one way or another.
and in this case, the reward is that the idea got used and credit was
given
You mean, when Ingo announced CFS he mentioned Con's name?
I really doubt
On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 11:40 -0700, Hua Zhong wrote:
And, from a standpoint of ONGOING, long-term innovation: what matters
is that brilliant, new ideas get rewarded one way or another.
and in this case, the reward is that the idea got used and credit was
given
You mean, when
Roman Zippel wrote:
When Ingo posted his rewrite http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/13/180, Con had
already pretty much lost. I have no doubt that Ingo can quickly transform
an idea into working code and I would've been very surprised if he
wouldn't be able to turn it into something technically
Hi,
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> We've had people go with a splash before. Quite frankly, the current
> scheduler situation looks very much like the CML2 situation. Anybody
> remember that? The developer there also got rejected, the improvement was
> made differently (and much
Bill Huey (hui) wrote:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 09:15:17AM +0800, Carlo Florendo wrote:
And I think you are digressing from the main issue, which is the empirical
comparison of SD vs. CFS and to determine which is best. The root of all
the scheduler fuss was the emotional reaction of SD's
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 02:57 -0700, Bill Huey wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 09:15:17AM +0800, Carlo Florendo wrote:
> >
> > We obviously all saw how the particular authors tried to address the
> > issues. Ingo tried to address all concerns while Con simply ranted about
> > his scheduler being
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 09:15:17AM +0800, Carlo Florendo wrote:
> And I think you are digressing from the main issue, which is the empirical
> comparison of SD vs. CFS and to determine which is best. The root of all
> the scheduler fuss was the emotional reaction of SD's author on why his
>
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 09:15:17AM +0800, Carlo Florendo wrote:
And I think you are digressing from the main issue, which is the empirical
comparison of SD vs. CFS and to determine which is best. The root of all
the scheduler fuss was the emotional reaction of SD's author on why his
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 02:57 -0700, Bill Huey wrote:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 09:15:17AM +0800, Carlo Florendo wrote:
We obviously all saw how the particular authors tried to address the
issues. Ingo tried to address all concerns while Con simply ranted about
his scheduler being better.
Bill Huey (hui) wrote:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 09:15:17AM +0800, Carlo Florendo wrote:
And I think you are digressing from the main issue, which is the empirical
comparison of SD vs. CFS and to determine which is best. The root of all
the scheduler fuss was the emotional reaction of SD's
Hi,
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
We've had people go with a splash before. Quite frankly, the current
scheduler situation looks very much like the CML2 situation. Anybody
remember that? The developer there also got rejected, the improvement was
made differently (and much
Roman Zippel wrote:
When Ingo posted his rewrite http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/13/180, Con had
already pretty much lost. I have no doubt that Ingo can quickly transform
an idea into working code and I would've been very surprised if he
wouldn't be able to turn it into something technically
Martin Steigerwald wrote:
The current kernel development process tries to pretend that there is no
human involvement. Which is plain inaccurate: It is *all* human
involvement, without a human not a single bit of kernel code would
change.
IMHO, the above statements are all plain conjectures.
Martin Steigerwald wrote:
The current kernel development process tries to pretend that there is no
human involvement. Which is plain inaccurate: It is *all* human
involvement, without a human not a single bit of kernel code would
change.
IMHO, the above statements are all plain conjectures.
On 7/30/07, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For example, how hard is it for people to just admit that CFS actually
> does better than SD on a number of things? Including very much on the
> desktop.
Actually in benchmarks Ingo has quoted, SD was better on the desktop
(by a small
On Sun, 2007-07-29 at 14:48 -0700, Bill Huey wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 10:25:42PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > Absolutely.
> >
> > Con quit for his own reasons. Given that Con himself has said that CFS
> > was _not_ why he quite, please discard this... bait. Anyone who's name
> >
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 10:25:42PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Absolutely.
>
> Con quit for his own reasons. Given that Con himself has said that CFS
> was _not_ why he quite, please discard this... bait. Anyone who's name
> isn't Con Kolivas, who pretends to speak for him is at the very
* Satyam Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > So whats wrong then?
> > >
> > > Ingo decides to do a better scheduler - to some extent inspired by
> > > Con's work. And after 48 hours he publish first version that
> > > _anyone_ can see and comment on. Whats wrong with that?
> > >
> > > Did
On Sun, 2007-07-29 at 16:31 +0200, Diego Calleja wrote:
> El Sat, 28 Jul 2007 18:00:39 -0700, Bill Huey (hui) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> escribió:
>
> > The scheduler could have and still can undertake good solid transformation,
> > but getting folks to listen is another story which is why Con quit.
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 08:23:31PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> Am Sonntag 29 Juli 2007 schrieb Sam Ravnborg:
> > On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 12:56:28PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> > > Am Sonntag 29 Juli 2007 schrieb Sam Ravnborg:
> > > > > I
> > > > > actually also think that the
Am Sonntag 29 Juli 2007 schrieb Satyam Sharma:
> Hi Martin,
Hi Satyam,
> > I believe that Ingo did not meant any bad at all. I think its just
> > the way he works, he likes to have code before saying anything. But
> > still I believe before I'd go about replacing someone else code
> > completely
Hi Martin,
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> Am Sonntag 29 Juli 2007 schrieb Sam Ravnborg:
> > On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 12:56:28PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> > > Am Sonntag 29 Juli 2007 schrieb Sam Ravnborg:
> > > > > I
> > > > > actually also think that the communication
Am Sonntag 29 Juli 2007 schrieb Diego Calleja:
> > This time it was Con being the Mindcraft catalyst. But he's on *our*
> > side and he got beat down by the Linux kernel community. That's the
> > tragedy here. He was beaten down by the very people he was trying to
> > help out and support. It
Am Sonntag 29 Juli 2007 schrieb Sam Ravnborg:
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 12:56:28PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> > Am Sonntag 29 Juli 2007 schrieb Sam Ravnborg:
> > > > I
> > > > actually also think that the communication between Ingo and Con
> > > > could have been better especially when
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 12:56:28PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> Am Sonntag 29 Juli 2007 schrieb Sam Ravnborg:
> > > I
> > > actually also think that the communication between Ingo and Con could
> > > have been better especially when Ingo decided to write CFS while Con
> > > was still working
El Sat, 28 Jul 2007 18:00:39 -0700, Bill Huey (hui) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
escribió:
> The scheduler could have and still can undertake good solid transformation,
> but getting folks to listen is another story which is why Con quit. CFS
> basically locks him and his ideas out, not just from a
Am Sonntag 29 Juli 2007 schrieb Sam Ravnborg:
> > I
> > actually also think that the communication between Ingo and Con could
> > have been better especially when Ingo decided to write CFS while Con
> > was still working hard on SD.
>
> You realize that Ingo posted his code for anyone to look
> I
> actually also think that the communication between Ingo and Con could
> have been better especially when Ingo decided to write CFS while Con was
> still working hard on SD.
You realize that Ingo posted his code for anyone to look at/comment at
about 48 hours after he started to work on
Am Samstag 28 Juli 2007 schrieb Linus Torvalds:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Diego Calleja wrote:
> > El Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:05:25 -0700 (PDT), Linus Torvalds
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> > > So "modal" things are good for fixing behaviour in the short run.
> > > But they are a total disaster in the
Linus Torvalds wrote:
The fact is, I've _always_ considered the desktop to be the most important
part. And I suspect that that actually is true for most kernel developers,
because quite frankly, that's what 99% of them ends up using. If a kernel
developer uses Windows for his day-to-day work,
Am Samstag 28 Juli 2007 schrieb Linus Torvalds:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> > You cannot please everybody in the scheduler question, that is clear,
> > then why not offer dedicated scheduling alternatives (plugsched comes
> > to mind) and let them choose what pleases them most,
Am Samstag 28 Juli 2007 schrieb Linus Torvalds:
> People are suggesting that you'd have a separate "desktop kernel".
> That's insane. It also shows total ignorance of maintainership, and
> reality. And I bet most of the people there haven't tested _either_
> scheduler, they just like making
Am Samstag 28 Juli 2007 schrieb Linus Torvalds:
People are suggesting that you'd have a separate desktop kernel.
That's insane. It also shows total ignorance of maintainership, and
reality. And I bet most of the people there haven't tested _either_
scheduler, they just like making statements.
Am Samstag 28 Juli 2007 schrieb Linus Torvalds:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
You cannot please everybody in the scheduler question, that is clear,
then why not offer dedicated scheduling alternatives (plugsched comes
to mind) and let them choose what pleases them most, and
Am Samstag 28 Juli 2007 schrieb Linus Torvalds:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Diego Calleja wrote:
El Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:05:25 -0700 (PDT), Linus Torvalds
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
So modal things are good for fixing behaviour in the short run.
But they are a total disaster in the long run,
Linus Torvalds wrote:
The fact is, I've _always_ considered the desktop to be the most important
part. And I suspect that that actually is true for most kernel developers,
because quite frankly, that's what 99% of them ends up using. If a kernel
developer uses Windows for his day-to-day work,
I
actually also think that the communication between Ingo and Con could
have been better especially when Ingo decided to write CFS while Con was
still working hard on SD.
You realize that Ingo posted his code for anyone to look at/comment at
about 48 hours after he started to work on CFS?
Am Sonntag 29 Juli 2007 schrieb Sam Ravnborg:
I
actually also think that the communication between Ingo and Con could
have been better especially when Ingo decided to write CFS while Con
was still working hard on SD.
You realize that Ingo posted his code for anyone to look at/comment at
El Sat, 28 Jul 2007 18:00:39 -0700, Bill Huey (hui) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
escribió:
The scheduler could have and still can undertake good solid transformation,
but getting folks to listen is another story which is why Con quit. CFS
basically locks him and his ideas out, not just from a technical
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 12:56:28PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
Am Sonntag 29 Juli 2007 schrieb Sam Ravnborg:
I
actually also think that the communication between Ingo and Con could
have been better especially when Ingo decided to write CFS while Con
was still working hard on SD.
Am Sonntag 29 Juli 2007 schrieb Sam Ravnborg:
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 12:56:28PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
Am Sonntag 29 Juli 2007 schrieb Sam Ravnborg:
I
actually also think that the communication between Ingo and Con
could have been better especially when Ingo decided to
Am Sonntag 29 Juli 2007 schrieb Diego Calleja:
This time it was Con being the Mindcraft catalyst. But he's on *our*
side and he got beat down by the Linux kernel community. That's the
tragedy here. He was beaten down by the very people he was trying to
help out and support. It should have
Hi Martin,
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
Am Sonntag 29 Juli 2007 schrieb Sam Ravnborg:
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 12:56:28PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
Am Sonntag 29 Juli 2007 schrieb Sam Ravnborg:
I
actually also think that the communication between Ingo and
Am Sonntag 29 Juli 2007 schrieb Satyam Sharma:
Hi Martin,
Hi Satyam,
I believe that Ingo did not meant any bad at all. I think its just
the way he works, he likes to have code before saying anything. But
still I believe before I'd go about replacing someone else code
completely I would
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 08:23:31PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
Am Sonntag 29 Juli 2007 schrieb Sam Ravnborg:
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 12:56:28PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
Am Sonntag 29 Juli 2007 schrieb Sam Ravnborg:
I
actually also think that the communication between
* Satyam Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So whats wrong then?
Ingo decides to do a better scheduler - to some extent inspired by
Con's work. And after 48 hours he publish first version that
_anyone_ can see and comment on. Whats wrong with that?
Did you expect some
On Sun, 2007-07-29 at 16:31 +0200, Diego Calleja wrote:
El Sat, 28 Jul 2007 18:00:39 -0700, Bill Huey (hui) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
escribió:
The scheduler could have and still can undertake good solid transformation,
but getting folks to listen is another story which is why Con quit. CFS
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 10:25:42PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
Absolutely.
Con quit for his own reasons. Given that Con himself has said that CFS
was _not_ why he quite, please discard this... bait. Anyone who's name
isn't Con Kolivas, who pretends to speak for him is at the very least
On Sun, 2007-07-29 at 14:48 -0700, Bill Huey wrote:
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 10:25:42PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
Absolutely.
Con quit for his own reasons. Given that Con himself has said that CFS
was _not_ why he quite, please discard this... bait. Anyone who's name
isn't Con
On 7/30/07, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For example, how hard is it for people to just admit that CFS actually
does better than SD on a number of things? Including very much on the
desktop.
Actually in benchmarks Ingo has quoted, SD was better on the desktop
(by a small margin).
> It's like CONFIG_HZ - more or less often debated, and now we have everyone
> happy by giving them the choice.
That's an interesting analogy -- since really the right answer there
seems not to be modal at all, but rather to do CONFIG_NO_HZ.
- R.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Interesting... Trying to avoid reading email but with a flooded inbox
> it's quite hard to do.
Con, good to hear from you. Good luck with your future endeavors.
Charles
--
"Are [Linux users] lemmings collectively jumping off of the cliff of
reliable,
On Sat, Jul 28, 2007 at 03:18:24PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I don't think anything was suppressed here.
I disagree. See below.
> You seem to say that more modular code would have helped make for a nicer
> way to do schedulers, but if so, where were those patches to do that?
> Con's
Interesting... Trying to avoid reading email but with a flooded inbox it's
quite hard to do.
A lot of useful discussion seems to have generated in response to people's
_interpretation_ of my interview rather than what I actually said. For
example, everyone seems to think I quit because CFS was
Linus Torvalds wrote:
I personally feel that modal behaviour is bad, so it would introduce what
is in my opinion bad code, and likely result in problems not being found
and fixed as well (because people would pick the thing that "works for
them", and ignore the problems in the other module).
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Bill Huey wrote:
>
> My argument is that schedule development is open ended. Although having
> a central scheduler to hack is a a good thing, it shouldn't lock out or
> supress development from other groups that might be trying to solve the
> problem in unique ways.
I
On Sat, Jul 28, 2007 at 11:06:09PM +0200, Diego Calleja wrote:
> So your argument is that SD shouldn't have been merged either, because it
> would have resulted in one scheduler over the other?
My argument is that schedule development is open ended. Although having
a central scheduler to hack is
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Diego Calleja wrote:
> El Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:05:25 -0700 (PDT), Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> escribió:
> >
> > So "modal" things are good for fixing behaviour in the short run. But they
> > are a total disaster in the long run, and even in the short run they
On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 19:35 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> As a long-term maintainer, trust me, I know what matters. And a person who
> can actually be bothered to follow up on problem reports is a *hell* of a
> lot more important than one who just argues with reporters.
>
>
El Sat, 28 Jul 2007 13:07:05 -0700, Bill Huey (hui) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
escribió:
> of how crappy X is. This is an open argument on how to solve, but it
> should not have resulted in really one scheduler over the other. Both
So your argument is that SD shouldn't have been merged either, because
On Jul 28 2007 22:51, Diego Calleja wrote:
>El Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:05:25 -0700 (PDT), Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>escribió:
>
>> So "modal" things are good for fixing behaviour in the short run. But they
>> are a total disaster in the long run, and even in the short run they tend
>> to
El Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:05:25 -0700 (PDT), Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
escribió:
> So "modal" things are good for fixing behaviour in the short run. But they
> are a total disaster in the long run, and even in the short run they tend
> to have problems (simply because there will be cases
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, jos poortvliet wrote:
>
> Your point here seems to be: this is how it went, and it was right. Ok, got
> that.
But I wanted to bring out more than what you make sound like "that's what
happened, deal with it". I tried to explain _why_ the choices that were
made were in
On Sat, Jul 28, 2007 at 09:28:36PM +0200, jos poortvliet wrote:
> Your point here seems to be: this is how it went, and it was right. Ok, got
> that. Yet, Con walked away (and not just over SD). Seeing Con go, I wonder
> how many did leave without this splash. How many didn't even get involved
Op Saturday 28 July 2007, schreef Linus Torvalds:
>
> Compare this to SD for a while. Ponder.
>
> Linus
Your point here seems to be: this is how it went, and it was right. Ok, got
that. Yet, Con walked away (and not just over SD). Seeing Con go, I wonder
how many did
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, jos poortvliet wrote:
>
>
Actually, the tag you were looking for was ""
> http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=18350_id=259044
>
> Now I wonder. Apparently, one person complaining about SD was reason to keep
> it out
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> You cannot please everybody in the scheduler question, that is clear,
> then why not offer dedicated scheduling alternatives (plugsched comes to mind)
> and let them choose what pleases them most, and handles their workload best?
This is one
Op Saturday 28 July 2007, schreef Linus Torvalds:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Michael Chang wrote:
> > I do recall there is one issue on which Con wouldn't budge -- anything
> > that involved boosting certain kinds of processes in the kernel.
>
> I did that myself, so that's a non-issue.
>
> No. The
On Jul 28 2007 10:12, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>The fact is, I've _always_ considered the desktop to be the most important
>part. [...]
>The fact is, most kernel developers realize that Linux is used in
>different places, on different machines, and with different loads. You
>cannot make
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Michael Chang wrote:
>
> I do recall there is one issue on which Con wouldn't budge -- anything
> that involved boosting certain kinds of processes in the kernel.
I did that myself, so that's a non-issue.
No. The complaints were about the CK scheduler not being as
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
