> 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 continu
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 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
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 unsubs
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. Ri
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, 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 m
> > 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 do
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 Jul 28 2007 12:34, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>>
>> Time to investigate...
Well it really is different.
Simple test:
- run Unreal Tournament 99 (nice 0, it gets 98%,99% CPU most of the time)
- in a shell, `renice 20 $$; while :; do date; done;`
The she
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 kern
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 ea
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 in
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 superi
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 auth
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Bill Huey wrote:
>
> Here's the problem, *a lot* of folks can do scheduler development in and
> outside community, so what's with exclusive-only attitude towards the
> scheduler ?
There is no exclusive-only attitude towards the scheduler.
If you send me small and obvious i
* Bill Huey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's the problem, *a lot* of folks can do scheduler development in
> and outside community, so what's with exclusive-only attitude towards
> the scheduler ?
You came to us as an ex-BSD developer (which has a completely different
contribution culture)
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 Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 04:18:18PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Ingo posted numbers. Look at those numbers, and then I would suggest some
> people could seriously consider just shutting up. I've seen too many
> idiotic people who claim that Con got treated unfairly, without those
> people admi
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
> sc
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. H
On Sun, 2007-07-29 at 17:04 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> hi Kasper,
>
> * Kasper Sandberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Im still not so keen about this, Ingo never did get CFS to match SD in
> > smoothness for 3d applications, where my test subjects are quake(s),
> > world of warcraft via win
* George Sescher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * George Sescher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On 30/07/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > i'd encourage you to do it - in fact i already tried to prod Peter
> > > > > > Williams into doing exactly that ;) The more rea
> * George Sescher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > On 30/07/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > i'd encourage you to do it - in fact i already tried to prod Peter
> > > > > Williams into doing exactly that ;) The more reality checks a
> > > > > scheduler has, the better. [ Btw
* George Sescher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 30/07/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > i'd encourage you to do it - in fact i already tried to prod Peter
> > > > Williams into doing exactly that ;) The more reality checks a
> > > > scheduler has, the better. [ Btw., after t
> > On 30/07/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > i'd encourage you to do it - in fact i already tried to prod Peter
> > > Williams into doing exactly that ;) The more reality checks a
> > > scheduler has, the better. [ Btw., after the obvious initial merging
> > > trouble it should be
* George Sescher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 30/07/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > i'd encourage you to do it - in fact i already tried to prod Peter
> > Williams into doing exactly that ;) The more reality checks a
> > scheduler has, the better. [ Btw., after the obvious ini
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)
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'
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, George Sescher wrote:
>
> He said having reality checks is a good thing. He's encouraging some
> poor bastard to maintain plugsched out of mainline to have SD or
> whatever to compare to.
My bad, it was me who misread that (I didn't react to the name, I was
thinking peopl
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, George Sescher wrote:
> >
> >
> > You're advocating plugsched now?
On 30/07/07, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd suggest people here take a look at the code. It's not what Ingo was
> saying, and it's not what the code is set up to do. He's just stating that
>
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, George Sescher wrote:
>
>
> You're advocating plugsched now?
I'd suggest people here take a look at the code. It's not what Ingo was
saying, and it's not what the code is set up to do. He's just stating that
the way he split up the files, it's actually easier from a patc
> * Kasper Sandberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [...] As far as im concerned, i may be forced to unofficially maintain
> > SD for my own systems(allthough lots in the gaming community is bound
> > to be interrested, as it does make games lots better)
On 30/07/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 leas
* 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. C
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 communic
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 b
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 shou
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
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
On Sonntag, 29. Juli 2007, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-07-29 at 01:41 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I never tried Con's patchset, for two reasons:
> > I tried his 2.4 patches ones, and I never saw any improvements. So when
> > people were reporting huge improvements w
hi Kasper,
* Kasper Sandberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Im still not so keen about this, Ingo never did get CFS to match SD in
> smoothness for 3d applications, where my test subjects are quake(s),
> world of warcraft via wine, unreal tournament 2004. And this is
> despite many patches he s
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 techni
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/co
> 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 CF
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, I
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, a
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 statem
> 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, w
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 patche
On Sun, 2007-07-29 at 01:41 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I never tried Con's patchset, for two reasons:
> I tried his 2.4 patches ones, and I never saw any improvements. So when
> people
> were reporting huge improvements with his SD scheduler, I compared that with
> the reports
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
Hi,
I never tried Con's patchset, for two reasons:
I tried his 2.4 patches ones, and I never saw any improvements. So when people
were reporting huge improvements with his SD scheduler, I compared that with
the reports of huge improvements with his 2.4 kernel patches.
...
The second: too many pa
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).
I
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> I generally run with CONFIG_HZ=100, CONFIG_NO_HZ=n, CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE.
Ok, that's HZ=100 is likely the worst case, as it effectively multiples
all the scheduler latencies by 10 (rather than by 4, which is what the
default 250Hz does).
That sai
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 don't
On Jul 28 2007 14:33, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>Btw, people who actually have 3D games installed (I have exactly one:
>ppracer, and I can't really say that I care about how it feels), if you
>don't have CONFIG_HZ=1000, this really is worth testing.
>
>I think Ingo probably ran with CONFIG_NO_HZ a
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Yes, it's what "/proc/sys/kernel/sched_granularity_ns" is supposed to
> tweak, but maybe there's some misfeature there, or maybe the default is
> just bad for games, or whatever.
>
> Ingo: that sysctl_sched_granularity initialization doesn't make
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 a
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 tend
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 fac
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 at
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> Time to investigate...
Well, one thing that would be worth doing is to simply create a trace of
time-slices for both schedulers.
It could easily be some hacky thing that just saves the process name and
TSC at each scheduling event in some fairly
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 leave
On Jul 28 2007 10:50, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
>>
>> First off, i've personally run tests on many more machines than my own,
>> i've had lots of people try on their machines, and i've seen totally
>> unrelated posts to lkml, plus i've seen the experiences
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, jos poortvliet wrote:
>
>
Actually, the tag you were looking for was ""
> http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=18350&comment_id=259044
>
> Now I wonder. Apparently, one person complaining about SD was reason to keep
> it out http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=18
On Sat, 2007-07-28 at 10:50 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
> >
> > First off, i've personally run tests on many more machines than my own,
> > i've had lots of people try on their machines, and i've seen totally
> > unrelated posts to lkml, plus i've s
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 approa
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 com
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
>
> First off, i've personally run tests on many more machines than my own,
> i've had lots of people try on their machines, and i've seen totally
> unrelated posts to lkml, plus i've seen the experiences people are
> writing about on IRC. Frankly, im n
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 _everybo
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Ronni Nielsen wrote:
>
> - Linus 2.6.23-rc1
> + Linux 2.6.23-rc1
>
> Or are *you* now under versioning?
> Or maybe a silent namechange of the kernel?
Yeah, yeah, my fingers get confused. I type "Linux" and "Linus"
interchangably, and
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 responsi
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Jonathan Jessup wrote:
>
> Linus, there is a complaint about the Linux kernel, this complaint is that
> the Linux kernel isn't giving priorities to desktop interactivity and
> experience. The response on osnews.com etc have shown that there is public
> demand for it too.
No
Hi,
On 28/07/07, Stefan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> > There are just about 9000 bugs in the kernel bugtracker and about 15
> > bugs in the KDE bugtracker. Granted KDE bugtracker includes a lot of
> > applications, but still I think the number of bug reports
Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> There are just about 9000 bugs in the kernel bugtracker and about 15
> bugs in the KDE bugtracker. Granted KDE bugtracker includes a lot of
> applications, but still I think the number of bug reports in the kernel
> bugtracker is ridicolously low. And I think that
Hmm
- Linus 2.6.23-rc1
+ Linux 2.6.23-rc1
Or are *you* now under versioning?
Or maybe a silent namechange of the kernel?
/ronni
-
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.
On 7/27/07, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Con ended up arguing against people who reported problems, rather than
> trying to work with them.
I do recall there is one issue on which Con wouldn't budge -- anything
that involved boosting certain kinds of processes in the kernel. He
sai
Up till now i haven't read the interview with Linus.
> [2] http://www.oneopensource.it/interview-linus-torvalds/
>
It is interesting, he mentiones a lesson to learn from Microsoft:
"'Well, historically, the most important lesson from Microsoft - and one they
themselves seem to have forgotten - i
Am Samstag 28 Juli 2007 schrieb Matthew Hawkins:
> On 7/28/07, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > People who think SD was "perfect" were simply ignoring reality.
> > Sadly, that seemed to include Con too, which was one of the main
> > reasons that I never ended entertaining the notion of
Am Samstag 28 Juli 2007 schrieb Linus Torvalds:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
> > Im still not so keen about this, Ingo never did get CFS to match SD
> > in smoothness for 3d applications, where my test subjects are
> > quake(s), world of warcraft via wine, unreal tournament 2004. A
On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 19:35 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
> >
> > Im still not so keen about this, Ingo never did get CFS to match SD in
> > smoothness for 3d applications, where my test subjects are quake(s),
> > world of warcraft via wine, unreal to
On 7/28/07, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> People who think SD was "perfect" were simply ignoring reality. Sadly,
> that seemed to include Con too, which was one of the main reasons that I
> never ended entertaining the notion of merging SD for very long at all:
> Con ended up arguing
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
Im still not so keen about this, Ingo never did get CFS to match SD in
smoothness for 3d applications, where my test subjects are quake(s),
world of warcraft via wine, unreal tournament 2004. And this is desp
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
>
> Im still not so keen about this, Ingo never did get CFS to match SD in
> smoothness for 3d applications, where my test subjects are quake(s),
> world of warcraft via wine, unreal tournament 2004. And this is despite
> many patches he sent me to try
(sorry for repost, but there seemed to have been some troubles..)
On Sun, 2007-07-22 at 14:04 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Ok, right on time, two weeks afetr 2.6.22, there's a 2.6.23-rc1 out there.
>
> And it has a *ton* of changes as usual for the merge window, way too much
> for me to be abl
On Monday 23 July 2007 16:44, Alessandro Suardi wrote:
> On 7/23/07, Ismail Dönmez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Monday 23 July 2007 19:43:56 Gabriel C wrote:
> > > I get some ACPI Exception.
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > [ 33.075429] ACPI Exception (processor_throttling-0084): AE_NOT_FOUND,
>
1 - 100 of 136 matches
Mail list logo
