Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> Al Boldi <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > > The problem is not just simple bugs that surface, it's deeper than
> > > > that. Deep structural problems is what plagues 2.6.
> > > >
> > > > Only a focused model may deal with such problems.
> > >
> > > can you at least provide a list of such structural problems?
> > > In fact, why don't you collect them and mail them out (bi)weekly...
> > > that may already do wonders.
> > > Look at what Adrian is doing with the regressions; although the
> > > response isn't 100% people DO pay attention to it.... so maybe if you
> > > post a "structural problems list" people will actually start working
> > > on things.. (and of course you can help too ;)
> >
> > Ok, things like OOM, scheduling, and block-io.
>
> If you want stability don't change these. But if you think you
> have better heuristics propose them for discussion.
I don't think there is a lack of heuristics, nor is there a lack of
discussion. What is needed, is a realization of the problem.
IOW, respective tree-owners need to come to a realization of the state of
their trees, problem or not. If it has a problem, that problem needs to be
fixed or backed out of stable and moved into dev.
> > net looks ok, although I would suggest a redesign for 3.0.
>
> Facts, no vague pronouncements please.
I meant structural OSI compliance.
Thanks!
--
Al
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
