linux-kernel - Re: [ck] Re: Linus 2.6.23-rc1

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 29 Jul 2007 20:23:31 +0200
From:	Martin Steigerwald <Martin@...htvoll.de>
To:	ck@....kolivas.org
Cc:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lkml@...anurb.dk
Subject: Re: [ck] Re: Linus 2.6.23-rc1

Am Sonntag 29 Juli 2007 schrieb Sam Ravnborg:
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 12:56:28PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> > Am Sonntag 29 Juli 2007 schrieb Sam Ravnborg:
> > > > I
> > > > actually also think that the communication between Ingo and Con
> > > > could have been better especially when Ingo decided to write CFS
> > > > while Con was still working hard on SD.
> > >
> > > You realize that Ingo posted his code for anyone to look at/comment
> > > at about 48 hours after he started to work on CFS?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> So whats wrong then?
> Ingo decides to do a better scheduler - to some extent inspired by
> Con's work. And after 48 hours he publish first version that _anyone_
> can see and comment on. Whats wrong with that?
>
> Did you expect some lengthy discussion before the coding phase started
> or what?
>
> Just trying to understand what you are arguing about.

If I tried to rewrite a kernel subsystem - should I ever happen to dig 
that deep into kernel matters - while I actually know that someone 
already spent countless hours on exactly rewriting the exact same 
subsystem, I think I would have told that other developer about it as 
soon as I started coding on it. And if it just was a

"Hi Con,

I reconsidered the scheduling ideas again you brought to the Linux kernel 
world. Instead of using your scheduler tough I like to try to write a new 
one with fairness in mind, cause I think this, this and this can be 
improved upon.

I would like to hear your ideas about that as soon as possible and would 
like you to contribute your ideas and also code, where you see hit. You 
can find the git / bazaar / whatever repository where I do my 
developments at: someurl.

Regards, Ingo"

I believe that Ingo did not meant any bad at all. I think its just the way 
he works, he likes to have code before saying anything. But still I 
believe before I'd go about replacing someone else code completely I 
would inform that developer beforehand, even if it then turns out not to 
be feasible at all. No need to anounce it to the world already, but I 
would have informed that developer.

And aside from that there has been communication before and after this 
event that IMHO could have been "better". And thats not only targetted at 
Ingo.

A view this whole issue as "everyone who was involved in it, actually was 
involved in it and has his share in its outcome". So everyone has a great 
chance to learn something out of it. (That includes me of course, too.)

Ciao,
-- 
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA  B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7

Download attachment "signature.asc " of type "application/pgp-signature" (190 bytes)