From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761605AbXG2Jh0 (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Jul 2007 05:37:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1760992AbXG2JhP (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Jul 2007 05:37:15 -0400 Received: from mondschein.lichtvoll.de ([194.150.191.11]:3625 "EHLO mail.lichtvoll.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760989AbXG2JhN (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Jul 2007 05:37:13 -0400 From: Martin Steigerwald To: ck@vds.kolivas.org Subject: Re: [ck] Re: Linus 2.6.23-rc1 Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 11:37:04 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 Cc: Linus Torvalds , Diego Calleja , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jan Engelhardt , lkml@metanurb.dk References: <20070728225148.a0e58fdd.diegocg@gmail.com> (sfid-20070729_101104_135633_B9986945) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart59306754.EtHrZ5Sb3e"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200707291137.10605.Martin@lichtvoll.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --nextPart59306754.EtHrZ5Sb3e Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Am Samstag 28 Juli 2007 schrieb Linus Torvalds: > On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Diego Calleja wrote: > > El Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:05:25 -0700 (PDT), Linus Torvalds=20 escribi=F3: > > > So "modal" things are good for fixing behaviour in the short run. > > > But they are a total disaster in the long run, and even in the > > > short run they tend to have problems (simply because there will be > > > cases that straddle the line, and show some of _both_ issues, and > > > now *neither* mode is the right one) > > > > I fully agree with this, but plugsched could have avoided this > > useless "division" on the topic of SD vs CFS. IMO that counts as an > > advantage, too ;) > > Sure. I actually think it's a huge advantage (see the ManagementStyle > file on pissing people off), but at the same time, I don't like playing > politics with technology. The kernel is a technical project, and I make > technical decisions. IMHO thats an illusion. The kernel has become a community project pretty=20 soon after you have released it initially. And the community members are=20 human beings. Thus while the kernel source code in itself for sure=20 describes technical processes, the kernel is more than just a technical=20 project. > So I absolutely detest adding code for "political" reasons. I can understand this and I agree to it, cause it would mean fixing=20 political things on technical grounds and thus not fixing them at all. > I personally feel that modal behaviour is bad, so it would introduce > what is in my opinion bad code, and likely result in problems not being > found and fixed as well (because people would pick the thing that > "works for them", and ignore the problems in the other module). So > while I don't like making irreversible decisions (and the choice of CFS > wasn't irreversible in itself, but if it pisses off Con, _that_ is > generally not reversible), I dislike even more making a half-assed > decision. I agree to this to some extent. But if the mainline kernel does not=20 contain suitable solutions for one subsystem people will tend to plug in=20 other solutions that work for them even where there is no boot or runtime=20 plugability. I have been using TuxOnIce (formerly suspend2) for quite some time and=20 didn't even try the in-kernel-suspend-to-disk stuff since quite some=20 kernel versions since I could not have been bothered anymore after it was=20 failing back then. So when there are two different approaches with good following it may have= =20 be good to have some plugability for testing things. But it may be=20 difficult to remove it afterwards again..., but it would still be=20 possible to remove plugins that are only used rarely and they how the=20 other ones evolve. > So rather than making a choice at all, my other choice would have been > to not merge _either_ scheduler, and let people just continue to fight > it out. Would that have made people happier? I seriously doubt it. I tried speaking to Con and Ingo whether they could settle their issue=20 with one another and work together. In *private* mails, away from all the=20 flame throwing. Actually I believe that human things should be resolved on the human side,= =20 not on the technical one. And as I perceive no serious attempt has been=20 made on that - except my own maybe. Maybe just writing an email to both Con and Ingo where you told both of=20 them your concerns and thoughts would have helped a lot. A "Hi Con and Ingo,=20 Con, I do not believe that you are able to maintain SD for reason 1,2 and=20 3. But I do think that Ingo could. But I think, that you wrote great code=20 and brought in good scheduler concepts and ideas to the Linux world. Now=20 Ingo has CFS and you have SD... could there be a way for you to stay=20 involved with scheduler issues and work together with Ingo? If so how=20 could it look like? Ingo, do you see areas where Con can help you with? Are there things in SD= =20 that you would like to have in CFS? Do you see a way to work with Con=20 together on the scheduler?" (just a draft;-) for example. It would have given Con some recognition for his work. It=20 could have helped to address the political, well not even the political,=20 but the human issue here. I believe that this is what Con missed the=20 most: Getting some form of recognition from the "official" kernel people!=20 I tried to give some recognition, but I am "just" a user of his patches. Would that have been difficult for you to write, Linus? Its not too late for giving Con some recognition. A simple=20 "Hi Con,=20 I am sorry that you decided to leave kernel development. I felt I had to=20 make a decision about the scheduler thing and these where my concerns... I just wanted to tell you that I did not mean any personal offence with=20 you and did not have any real issue with your code at all,=20 Regards Linus"=20 as an aftermath could still help. Just a little gesture maybe - but it can= =20 make a big difference. Maybe without even asking him to come back... I=20 think Con made his decision for now at least. Regards, =2D-=20 Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 --nextPart59306754.EtHrZ5Sb3e Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBGrF/GmRvqrKWZhMcRAqF/AJ4yThuadOqz+6++KH8paLbpx3eTQQCgsVX3 QnY8B0J4lTv6nPdZ1OYSq7U= =1xrd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart59306754.EtHrZ5Sb3e--