From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752528Ab0CRWQa (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:16:30 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:38988 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751450Ab0CRWQ3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:16:29 -0400 Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:16:17 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Alan Cox Cc: drepper@gmail.com, Anthony Liguori , Avi Kivity , Peter Zijlstra , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Marcelo Tosatti , Joerg Roedel , Jes Sorensen , Gleb Natapov , Zachary Amsden , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Fr?d?ric Weisbecker Subject: Re: [RFC] Unify KVM kernel-space and user-space code into a single project Message-ID: <20100318221617.GB19669@elte.hu> References: <20100318201826.GA20588@elte.hu> <20100318205655.GB4821@elte.hu> <20100318220654.4305b9e0@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100318220654.4305b9e0@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Alan Cox wrote: > > So it's good enough to be in Fedora/RHEL but not good enough to be in > > upstream glibc? How is that possible? Isnt that a double standard? > > Yes its a double standard > > Glibc has a higher standard than Fedora/RHEL. > > Just like the Ubuntu kernel ships various ugly unfit for upstream kernel > drivers. There's a world of a difference between a fugly driver and a glibc patch. Also, we tend to upstream even fugly kernel drivers if they are important and are deployed by a major distro - see Noveau. > > kernel's fault. But glibc is certainly not being helpful in that situation > > either and your earlier claim that you are only waiting for the patches is > > rather dishonest. > > I am sure Ulrich is being totally honest, but send him the patches and > you'll find out. Plus you will learn what the API should look like when you > try and create them ... I was there and extended/fixed bits of the kaio/libaio code when they were written so yes i already know something about it. To say that the glibc reaction was less than enthusiastic back then is a strong euphemism ;-) So after 8 years some of the bits made its way into Fedora/RHEL. I think this is a pretty good demonstration of the points i made ;-) Thanks, Ingo