linux-kernel - Re: about modularization

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:	Fri, 3 Aug 2007 17:28:50 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	debian developer <debiandev@...il.com>
Cc:	"T. J. Brumfield" <enderandrew@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: about modularization


* debian developer <debiandev@...il.com> wrote:

> > 1 - Can someone please explain why the kernel can be modular in 
> > every other aspect, including offering a choice of IO schedulers, 
> > but not kernel schedulers?
> 
> Good question. has been answered in other threads. Linus does'nt like 
> having separate kernel schedulers.

not just Linus, but neither me nor Nick Piggin, nor a ton of other 
kernel hackers agree with that idea, for numerous technical reasons,
as it has been discussed to death already ;-)

and the last but not least point, although they might sound pretty 
similar, there is quite a bit of difference between "IO schedulers" and 
"CPU schedulers", just like there is quite a bit of difference between 
"Paris Hilton" and "The Hilton, Paris" =B-)

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/