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]

Message-ID: <46B36A43.6030101@gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:47:47 +0200
From:	Rene Herman <rene.herman@...il.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	"T. J. Brumfield" <enderandrew@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: about modularization

On 08/03/2007 03:19 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> One of the authors of the IO scheduler code said it on lkml recently that
> while modularization of IO scheduler had advantages too, in retrospect he
> wishes they would not have made IO schedulers modular and now that
> decision cannot be undone.

Just as a matter of interest -- why can't it? (a pointer to a list archive 
if you have one, or a name so I can look for it myself if you don't, will do 
as answer).

Rene.
-
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/