Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 17 Oct 2005 11:29:22 +0200 (CEST) | From | Roman Zippel <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] ktimers subsystem 2.6.14-rc2-kt5 |
| |
Hi,
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> the thing is that Thomas has advanced the whole issue of timeouts and > timekeeping by leaps and bounds and he has written thousands of lines of > new and excellent code for a kernel subsystem that has seen little > activity for many years, before John got involved. One of Thomas' > accomplishments is a timer/time design that allows the enabling of HRT > timers via an _18 lines_ architecture patch. (!)
Did I say these patches were bad in general? All I'm asking for is an explanation for a few design decisions to understand the patch and its behaviour better and evaluate alternative solutions. Neither of you have shown any real interest in this so far.
> the moment you express yourself via patches we'll know that 1) you > understand what we have done so far 2) you have useful ideas of what > should be done differently 3) you have the coder capability to implement > and test those ideas. Patches wont be ignored, i can assure you. Get the > patches rolling!
This "shut up and show code" attitude is sometimes quite funny, but it's no real threat to me. I hoped to avoid this and solve this more civilized. Of course I'll understand the issues better afterwards, but you could as easily just tell me. It will waste my time, I could spend on other projects and it will put Andrew in the unfortunate position to decide, which patch to accept. Is this really what you want?
bye, Roman - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |