Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:05:36 +0200 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH] SCHED_EDF scheduling class |
| |
On Wed 2009-09-23 07:50:59, Daniel Walker wrote: > On Wed, 2009-09-23 at 14:25 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > >> discouraging contributions is more something that happens when you > > >> get the responses I got earlier in this thread.. > > > > > > That's probably intentional. Whitespace fixes have their place but > > > not at this stage in a patch's lifecycle. > > > > Exactly. What might make sense is to scan linux-next for new commits > > that show serious cleanliness trouble - and send fix patches to the > > parties involved. That's a real effort and brings the code forward. > > Often times when a patch is at youngest that when you want to catch > these issues .. This EDF patch will likely get submitted more than > twice. If you catch all the minor problems first you will not be dealing > with them later when it comes time to include the code.
You want to deal with them later, because many patches end up in trashcan...
Now, Ingo's idea of scanning -next (and fixing it) sounds sane...
Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
| |