From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 18:15:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 18:15:34 -0400 Received: from gateway-1237.mvista.com ([12.44.186.158]:8437 "EHLO hermes.mvista.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 18:15:33 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] O(1) scheduler for 2.4.19-rc1 From: Robert Love To: venom@sns.it Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 Date: 02 Jul 2002 15:18:00 -0700 Message-Id: <1025648280.991.1338.camel@sinai> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2002-07-02 at 15:10, venom@sns.it wrote: > On 2 Jul 2002, Robert Love wrote: > > > As I am the one doing these 2.4 patches, I will invariably be asked > > whether I intend for the O(1) scheduler to be merged into 2.4. The > > answer is a strong NO. > > Of course, I think you know that you will also asked WHY? Because I do not think 2.4 should be a breeding ground for every new feature that wets someone's appetite. It should be stable and trusted before anything else. We also have to worry about architecture support. Let the scheduler be 2.5's thing. > Also if I can immagine your reasons, as similar discussions have been > done for preemption patch and so on, and as I said at the times, I Agree. I do not think preemption should go in 2.4, either. It too is a 2.5 thing. > 2.5 is the place for this new and cool stuff. Agreed. Robert Love