linux-kernel - Re: BFS v0.311 CPU scheduler for 2.6.32

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:	Sat, 12 Dec 2009 04:22:15 +0100
From:	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>
To:	Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>
Cc:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: BFS v0.311 CPU scheduler for 2.6.32

On Saturday 12 December 2009 03:00:54 am Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:55:39 Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > On Friday 11 December 2009 11:37:42 pm Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 02:12:58 Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 01:10:39 Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > > > > > Could you make the scheduler build time configurable instead of
> > > > > > replacing the existing one? Embedded folks in particular may love a
> > > > > > low footprint scheduler.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's not a bad idea, but the kernel still needs to be patched either
> > > > > way. To get BFS they'd need to patch the kernel. If they didn't want
> > > > > BFS, they wouldn't patch it in the first place.
> > > >
> > > > BFS would have a chance to be merged as an alternate scheduler for
> > > > specialized situations (such as embedded or desktop use).
> > >
> > > Nice idea, but regardless of who else might want that, the mainline
> > 
> > FWIW I would also love to see it happen.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> > > maintainers have already made it clear they do not.
> > 
> > Oh, those upstream bastards.. ;)
> > 
> > Why do you care so much about their acknowledgment?
> 
> Whaa...?
> 
> > 
> > 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. 

Unfortunately the flaw is in your reasoning..

> 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?

The thing is that those two points are not necessarily a conflicting ones..

--
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
--
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/