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: <20070803185954.GB20580@elte.hu>
Date:	Fri, 3 Aug 2007 20:59:54 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Rene Herman <rene.herman@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: about modularization


* Rene Herman <rene.herman@...il.com> wrote:

> 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).

some apps depend on AS, some on CFQ, and once you expose something to 
users it's _very_ hard to remove it, even if the technical arguments are 
strong.

  http://lists.openwall.net/linux-kernel/2007/04/16/23

	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/