linux-kernel - Re: RFC: THE OFFLINE SCHEDULER

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]

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/