[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <474CB44B.40109@o2.pl>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 01:20:27 +0100
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
CC: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] make I/O schedulers non-modular
Adrian Bunk wrote, On 11/27/2007 11:53 PM:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 11:15:48PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
...
> Most Google hits are about abortion.
>
> The fact that people use this term in some completely different
> context does not give it the meaning you implied it had.
>
> Oh, and this right of choice also does not exist in Poland...
Anyway, your later arguments could suggest you've understood,
what I've meant. And maybe abortion isn't bad association here...
...
> As one of the most active code removers in the kernel [1], I can tell
> you what actually happens in practice:
...
> It's always surprising how many people complain when you deprecate or
> remove a choice B that choice A wouldn't work for them, and who had
> never reported their problems before since choice B worked for them...
Of course, all these choices should be reasonably limited, so the
opinions of users and maintainers should be always considered.
But, I was rather against something else: removing some maybe not very
popular, but still not buggy options, only to save a few kilobytes or
maintainers' time.
> [1] http://lwn.net/Articles/247582/
My congratulations! Of course, removing is something necessary, but I wish
you many problems! (== many users)
Thanks,
Jarek P.
-
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