[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87bk3wpnzv.ffs@tglx>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 00:27:16 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org,
juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
mgorman@...e.de, bristot@...hat.com, vschneid@...hat.com, ast@...nel.org,
daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org, martin.lau@...nel.org,
joshdon@...gle.com, brho@...gle.com, pjt@...gle.com, derkling@...gle.com,
haoluo@...gle.com, dvernet@...a.com, dschatzberg@...a.com,
dskarlat@...cmu.edu, riel@...riel.com, changwoo@...lia.com,
himadrics@...ia.fr, memxor@...il.com, andrea.righi@...onical.com,
joel@...lfernandes.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...a.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET v6] sched: Implement BPF extensible scheduler class
Linus!
On Wed, Jun 19 2024 at 15:10, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 at 13:56, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>>
>> So instead of "solving" this brute force and thereby proliferating the
>> non-constructive situation, can you please hold off with that plan to
>> merge it as is and give us three month to get this onto a collaborative
>> and constructive track?
>
> The thing is, I have seen absolutely _nothing_ in the last 9 months or
> so.
Right, but that applies to both sides, no?
> So to me, "three more months" sounds like just delay.
Three months delay are well worth to give it try, but that's your
decision.
Thanks,
Thomas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists