On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 09:15:17AM +0800, Carlo Florendo wrote:
> And I think you are digressing from the main issue, which is the empirical
> comparison of SD vs. CFS and to determine which is best. The root of all
> the scheduler fuss was the emotional reaction of SD's author on why his
> scheduler began to be compared with CFS.
Legitimate emotional reaction for being locked out of the development
process. There's a very human aspect to this, yes, a negative human
aspect that pervade Linux kernel development and is overly defensive and
protective of new ideas.
> We obviously all saw how the particular authors tried to address the
> issues. Ingo tried to address all concerns while Con simply ranted about
> his scheduler being better. If this is what you think about being a bit
> more human, then I think that this has no place in the lkml.
That's highly inaccurate and rather disrespect of Con's experience.
There as a policy decision made with SD that one person basically didn't
like, this person whined like a baby for the a formula bottle and didn't
understand how to use "nice" to control this inherent behavior of this
scheduler.
bill
-
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]
