[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <84144f020710050219k2460631cjfd556d6eae645887@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 12:19:28 +0300
From: "Pekka Enberg" <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: "Jens Axboe" <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc: "David Chinner" <dgc@....com>,
"David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, cebbert@...hat.com,
willy@...ux.intel.com, clameter@....com, nickpiggin@...oo.com.au,
hch@....de, mel@...net.ie, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, suresh.b.siddha@...el.com
Subject: Re: SLUB performance regression vs SLAB
Hi,
On 10/5/07, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> wrote:
> I'd like to second Davids emails here, this is a serious problem. Having
> a reproducible test case lowers the barrier for getting the problem
> fixed by orders of magnitude. It's the difference between the problem
> getting fixed in a day or two and it potentially lingering for months,
> because email ping-pong takes forever and "the test team has moved on to
> other tests, we'll let you know the results of test foo in 3 weeks time
> when we have a new slot on the box" just removing any developer
> motivation to work on the issue.
What I don't understand is that why don't the people who _have_ access
to the test case fix the problem? Unlike slab, slub is not a pile of
crap that only Christoph can hack on...
Pekka
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists