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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 22:55:17 -0400 From: fche@...hat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler) To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>, peterz@...radead.org, raziebe@...il.com, maximlevitsky@...il.com, cfriesen@...tel.com, efault@....de, riel@...hat.com, wiseman@...s.biu.ac.il, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: RFC: THE OFFLINE SCHEDULER Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> writes: > [...] > >> Don't get all religious about this. If the change is clean, >> maintainable and useful then there's no reason to not merge it. > Precisely. This feature as proposed here hinders the correct > solution being implemented - and hence hurts long term > maintainability and hence is a no-merge right now. (Does it "hinder" this in any different way than the following, as in possibly reducing "pressure" for it?) > [It also weakens the pressure to fix latencies for a much wider set > of applications, hence hurts the quality of Linux in the long > run. (i.e. is a net step backwards)] How would you differentiate the above sentiment from "perfect is the enemy of the good"? - FChE -- 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