Messages in this thread | | | From | Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <> | Subject | Re: BFS v0.311 CPU scheduler for 2.6.32 | Date | Sat, 12 Dec 2009 04:22:15 +0100 |
| |
On Saturday 12 December 2009 03:00:54 am Con Kolivas wrote: > On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:55:39 Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > > On Friday 11 December 2009 11:37:42 pm Con Kolivas wrote: > > > On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 02:12:58 Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > > On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Con Kolivas wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 01:10:39 Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > > > > Could you make the scheduler build time configurable instead of > > > > > > replacing the existing one? Embedded folks in particular may love a > > > > > > low footprint scheduler. > > > > > > > > > > It's not a bad idea, but the kernel still needs to be patched either > > > > > way. To get BFS they'd need to patch the kernel. If they didn't want > > > > > BFS, they wouldn't patch it in the first place. > > > > > > > > BFS would have a chance to be merged as an alternate scheduler for > > > > specialized situations (such as embedded or desktop use). > > > > > > Nice idea, but regardless of who else might want that, the mainline > > > > FWIW I would also love to see it happen. > > Thanks! > > > > maintainers have already made it clear they do not. > > > > Oh, those upstream bastards.. ;) > > > > Why do you care so much about their acknowledgment? > > Whaa...? > > > > > If you are not doing your unpaid kernel work for yourself and for people > > who recognize/use it then upstream maintainers not liking your changes > > should really be the least of your worries.. > > > > Wait, this does not make sense. There's a cyclical flaw in this reasoning. If > I cared about their acknowledgment, I would make it mainline mergeable and > argue a case for it, which I do not want to do.
Unfortunately the flaw is in your reasoning..
> I'm happy to make reasonable changes to the code consistent with what people > who use it want, but what exactly is the point of making it mainline mergeable > if it will not be merged?
The thing is that those two points are not necessarily a conflicting ones..
-- Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
| |