Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 12 Dec 2009 06:54:59 +0100 | From | Willy Tarreau <> | Subject | Re: BFS v0.311 CPU scheduler for 2.6.32 |
| |
Hi Con,
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 01:00:54PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote: > > 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. > > 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?
Many people build their own kernels by : 1) applying a lot of patches on them (stable + features) 2) using machine-specific configs
You will get far more testers if they can use the same kernel and just play with their config files than if they have to patch/unpatch depending on what they need to have.
I personally would love to be able to add BFS into my kernels for testing purposes, comparison, and possibly to propose enhancements and fixes. But I don't want to *replace* mainline code.
Also, I like to have the same kernel sources used on my desktop, notebook, eeepc, and my bootable USB key. It is a lot easier to upgrade and a lot easier to spot bugs before they strike in sensible environments.
Regards, Willy
| |