Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 23 Sep 2009 18:12:15 +0300 | From | Avi Kivity <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH] SCHED_EDF scheduling class |
| |
On 09/23/2009 06:08 PM, Daniel Walker wrote: > >> Not true, you want to address the major issues first. What's the point >> of fixing whitespace if the whole approach is rejected? if it has to >> undergo a rewrite? (not an opinion on EDF btw, just as an example) >> > I'm not sure why your fixated on whitespace , but thinking about it more > I don't think it matters .. If you fix whitespace or major issues first, > it doesn't matter .. All the issues have to eventually get fixed .. Not > to mentioned that LKML is not something you could remotely control in > that way. >
A technical issue is that if you rewrite the code the whitespace fix becomes irrelevant. But more important is that it's a distraction when people are thinking about requirements and design.
>>> In this case the author is not totally aware of how to submit this >>> code.. I don't think it's at all inappropriate to comment on that. His >>> next submission will likely be much cleaner and nicer. It may even speed >>> up the inclusion process since he'll be more easily able to submit the >>> code (with practice and comments from us). >>> >>> >> Give people some credit. >> > What do you mean? > >
If he's able to write a scheduling class, he'll pick up the coding style when it becomes relevant.
-- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
| |