Message-Id: <200707281205.10871.Martin@lichtvoll.de>
Date:	Sat, 28 Jul 2007 12:05:10 +0200
From:	Martin Steigerwald <Martin@...htvoll.de>
To:	ck@....kolivas.org
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Kasper Sandberg <lkml@...anurb.dk>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [ck] Re: Linus 2.6.23-rc1

Am Samstag 28 Juli 2007 schrieb Linus Torvalds:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
> > Im still not so keen about this, Ingo never did get CFS to match SD
> > in smoothness for 3d applications, where my test subjects are
> > quake(s), world of warcraft via wine, unreal tournament 2004. And
> > this is despite many patches he sent me to try and tweak it.

[...]

> I'm happy that SD was perfect for you. It wasn't for others, and it had
> nobody who was even interested in trying to solve those issues.

Linus, I seen somethimg *completely* different on the CK mailinglist. Con 
Koliva worked up to his limits and likely beyond them to fix any and all 
issues reported. Heck, he maintained that thing out of the kernel tree 
for a long time and the version number 1.0 does not come from nothing, it 
has gone through at least 50 iterations.

The only thing I know of where Con did not want to "fix" a problem, was 
with renicing X, cause he didn't want to introduce a special case in the 
scheduler, where a simple nice would do the trick. That said I never saw 
serious problems with X unreniced at all.

So I think your statements here are simply not accurate and also not fair, 
cause I have the impression that you did not look carefully before 
writing them.

You speak about working together, but now I ask you: Did you ever have a 
personal word with Con, did you ever tell him that you don't trust that 
he can maintain the SD scheduler when its mainline? Did you ever outspoke 
your concerns to *him*?

Granted, from a health point of view and maybe also from looking at how 
much time a maintainer will be able to spend more time on the scheduler 
Ingo *may* can do more than Con - if he doesn't do too much else;-). But 
looking at personal committment actually I saw no difference between Con 
and Ingo.

So while it may be good that CFS went in from that point of view, the way 
the decision was made was very suitable to piss off a very talented 
developer.

Anyway, the decision is done, Con resigned already, he gave up on it. And 
actually when I read your mail I can understand why he did so[1]. Sure, 
he is involved as well and I think he felt hurt on some things that in my 
perception were meant neutral or even supporting and postive, but still I 
disagree a lot on the tone in LKML and understand exactly why Linux 
users, Linux desktop users away from it as much as they can. Actually I 
do not get that as you state in one of your latest interviews that you 
are actually very interested into the desktop, cause its a very suitable 
kernel test case[2].

Well I for sure will patch whatever into my kernels that I think should be 
in there for me to have a *pleasant* desktop experience, including, but 
not limited to, TuxOnIce ;-). Oh, but that might possibly not be mainted 
nicely enough as well then. (Yes, here is sarcastic irony, lots of it. So 
no offence intended, Nigel;-)


[1] http://apcmag.com/6735/interview_con_kolivas
[2] http://www.oneopensource.it/interview-linus-torvalds/


Regards,
-- 
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)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists