[lkml]   [2005]   [Oct]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] ktimers subsystem 2.6.14-rc2-kt5

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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-10-17 11:32    [W:0.103 / U:2.484 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site